Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.398

Section 201(1) falls under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 398 (Consequences of failure to deduct or pay or, collect or pay) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 398 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 201(1) is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 of the 3,835 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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).

Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others
392 ITR 457 · 2017 · High Court
217
citing judgments
137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court
178
citing judgments

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E and penalties under Section 271H, finding the charging provision to be Section 234E, with the power to levy existing from 01/07/2012.

Judgments on Section 201(1)

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1236/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1234 & 1236/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………............................Appellant Block – Bn, Plot – 7, Sector – V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Calco 3085 F] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 59(4) (Tds), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 04, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 24, Kolkata Dated 04.03.2016 Whereby He Upheld The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Assessee As The Assessee In Default For A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company. A Survey Under Section 133A Was Carried Out In The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company On 13Th September, 2013. Subsequently, From The Relevant Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Amount Of Tax Deducted From The Payments Of Various Expenses Was Verified By The A.O. On Such Verification, He Found That Payments Of Rs. 29,51,709/- & Rs. 34,00,802/- Were Made By The Assessee Company To Different

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-59(4) (TDS), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1234 & 1236/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………............................Appellant Block – Bn, Plot – 7, Sector – V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Calco 3085 F] Income Tax Officer……………………………………………….............................................Respondent Ward 59(4) (Tds), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 04, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 24, Kolkata Dated 04.03.2016 Whereby He Upheld The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Treating The Assessee As The Assessee In Default For A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company. A Survey Under Section 133A Was Carried Out In The Business Premises Of The Assessee Company On 13Th September, 2013. Subsequently, From The Relevant Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Amount Of Tax Deducted From The Payments Of Various Expenses Was Verified By The A.O. On Such Verification, He Found That Payments Of Rs. 29,51,709/- & Rs. 34,00,802/- Were Made By The Assessee Company To Different

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)