← 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)

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-73(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 993/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the assessing officer under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 29.03.2018 passed under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) for assessment year 2011-12 is void ab initio, invalid and bad in law on account of being time barred in view

Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1984/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the assessing officer under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 29.03.2018 passed under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) for assessment year 2011-12 is void ab initio, invalid and bad in law on account of being time barred in view

Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 335/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Vasavi Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd., No. 108/1, Sri Chakra, The Commissioner Of East Park Road, Income Tax (Tds), Opp. Vasavi Mahal, Bangalore. Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaajv0152C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit (Tds), Bangalore For Ay 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Tds) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act With Respect To The Order Passed U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) On The Ground That They Are Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 18Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 263

case for assessment year 2916-17 in ITA No. 412- 413/Bang/2020 vide order dated 18/01/2021 deleted the addition made by the Ld.AO under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, and that pursuant such deletion the order passed by the Ld.CIT under section 263 seeking to revise the order passed

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Smt. R. Lalitha, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

ITA No.1906/Bang/2018 & ITA No.229/PAN/2018 M/s. The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

M/S. Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

ITA No.1884/Bang/2018 & M/s. Canara Bank, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS - Circle, Hubballi vs. M/S Shimoga District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Capt. Pradeep Shoury AryaFor Respondent: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 197ASection 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Amit Mehra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 6952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaasstt. Year: 2013-14 Amit Mehra Vs. Ito, Ward-16(3) S/O Arun Kumar Mehra, New Delhi. Plot No. 142A/11-12, Noida Sez(Nsez), Noida Uttar Pradesh Pin : 201305 Pan Aappm0542A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M P Rastogi, Advocate
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

such sum, but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1), then, it shall be deemed that the assessee had deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of the return of income by the resident ... payee referred to in the said proviso ; that, further, for the purpose of the proviso to section 201(1), the certificate which is 3 required, is to be furnished in Form No. 26A ; and that it had also not been substantiated that the assessee had not been held

Aleo Manali Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO (TDS), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4673/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 194CSection 194ISection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

learned Assessing Officer, pursuant to the directions given by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Noida, passed order dated 29/12/2016 under section 201(1) of the Act and section 201(1A) of the Act computing the demand of Rs.3,14,906/-which includes interest ... respect of the sum of Rs. 16,60,601/-. 4. When the assessee preferred appeal, challenging the order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) held that as the payment was made in the financial year 2009-10, the limitation date according

Nkc Projects (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

ITA 803/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Senior DR
Section 2Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 272Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

order had to be reckoned on the expire of six months from the end of the month of the order dated 30.11.2012 under section 201(1) of the Act, therefore the order of pen arty ought to have been framed by 30.5.2013 and hence the impugned order dated

ACIT, Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

claimed in this regard. It is also important to note here that the appellant has not been held as assessee in default under section 201(1)/201(1A). Further, there is also no adverse inference by the AO in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for the relevant ... Even though the passing of order under section 201(1)/201(1A) is not a pre condition for levy of penalty under section 271C, the said fact and the view taken by the AO in the assessment order adds to the genuineness of the claim of the appellant

Shakuntala Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15 Shakuntala Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds C/O Rra Taxindia, D- Ghaziabad. 28, South Extension, Part-1 New Delhi – 110 049 Pan Acjpg5891Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 194ISection 200Section 200ASection 201Section 220Section 220(2)Section 222Section 234ESection 3

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT

Nokia India Sales P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

most humble submission of the assessee that in accordance with the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act (inserted vide Finance Act 2012), no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), of the Act shall trigger in the facts ... leads to the question to adjudicate as to whether the assessee can be held to be a defaulter as per the provisions of Section 201(1) even when the recipient has offered the receipts to tax. 11. The fact in this case is that, prima facie the assessee has defaulted

M/S PAN Realtors P. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 3122/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 201

even if it is not considered to be an assessee-in-default. Hence, in view of the provisions of the First Proviso to section 201(1), the Assessing Officer is directed to give opportunity to the appellant to produce the Certificate in Form 26A as per Rule and modify

M/S PAN Realtors P. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 3121/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 201

even if it is not considered to be an assessee-in-default. Hence, in view of the provisions of the First Proviso to section 201(1), the Assessing Officer is directed to give opportunity to the appellant to produce the Certificate in Form 26A as per Rule and modify

M/S PAN Realtors P. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, (TDS), New Delhi

ITA 3120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 201

even if it is not considered to be an assessee-in-default. Hence, in view of the provisions of the First Proviso to section 201(1), the Assessing Officer is directed to give opportunity to the appellant to produce the Certificate in Form 26A as per Rule and modify