← All Phrases

“Section 201(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(1)1,701 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 201(1) is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 201(1)

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.
377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court
369
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

Judgments citing Section 201(1)

M/S. Bhoomi & Arkade Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir, 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2088/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Circle-32(1), M/S Bhoomi & Arkade 702, Kautilya Bhavan, Associates बिधम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, 2Nd Floor, Arkade House, B. Vs. Mumbai-400 051 S. Marg, Kandivali,(E), Mumbai-400 101 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aakfb2942A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Charmi Shroff, Ca प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2019-20 U/S 143(1). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Charmi Shroff, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(1)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 43B

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) read with proviso to section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act in the intimation order u/s 143(1). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) read with proviso to section 201(1), despite of the fact that when the other party has already offered the said income in his Return of Income and paid taxes on the same, then no addition can be made

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 563/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Hiten Chande
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as [‘CIT(A)’] dated 30.11.2018 passed under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Revenue ... individuals and corporate. This appeal was filed on 04/05/2011 for the AY 2000-10. This appeal was filed against the order passed under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income- tax Act. 1981 passed on 28/03/2011 by the ITO, OSD(TDS) 3(2), Mumbai The CIT(A)-13 Mumbai

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA and is in the nature of advertisement fees. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and passed the order under section 201(1) & 201(lA) dated 22.2.2013 for the AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. (for A.Y. 2007-2008 , A.Y. 2008- 2009, the Tribunal had disposed ... barred by limitation). The gist of A.O.’s finding are as follows: (i) The AO, in Part I of the order passed under section 201(1) & 201 (1 A) of the I.T.Act, held that the activities performed by the assessee under the distribution agreement are complemented by the activities performed

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA and is in the nature of advertisement fees. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and passed the order under section 201(1) & 201(lA) dated 22.2.2013 for the AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. (for A.Y. 2007-2008 , A.Y. 2008- 2009, the Tribunal had disposed ... barred by limitation). The gist of A.O.’s finding are as follows: (i) The AO, in Part I of the order passed under section 201(1) & 201 (1 A) of the I.T.Act, held that the activities performed by the assessee under the distribution agreement are complemented by the activities performed

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA and is in the nature of advertisement fees. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and passed the order under section 201(1) & 201(lA) dated 22.2.2013 for the AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. (for A.Y. 2007-2008 , A.Y. 2008- 2009, the Tribunal had disposed ... barred by limitation). The gist of A.O.’s finding are as follows: (i) The AO, in Part I of the order passed under section 201(1) & 201 (1 A) of the I.T.Act, held that the activities performed by the assessee under the distribution agreement are complemented by the activities performed

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

DTAA and is in the nature of advertisement fees. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and passed the order under section 201(1) & 201(lA) dated 22.2.2013 for the AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. (for A.Y. 2007-2008 , A.Y. 2008- 2009, the Tribunal had disposed ... barred by limitation). The gist of A.O.’s finding are as follows: (i) The AO, in Part I of the order passed under section 201(1) & 201 (1 A) of the I.T.Act, held that the activities performed by the assessee under the distribution agreement are complemented by the activities performed