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)

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack vs. Barbil Mining & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Keonjhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.185/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Ocl India Limited, Vs. Ddit (International Administrative Building, Taxation), Bhubaneswar- At/Po: Rajganpur, 751007 Dist: Sundergarh, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1354 J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumen Adak/ Ashish Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In It.Appeal No.0262/2013-14, Dated 27.01.2015, Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Sole Substantive Ground That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Treating The Assessee In Default U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act In Respect Of Payment Of Export Commission Of Rs.28,65,906/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Cement & Refractory Products & The Ao Found That The Assessee Paid An Amount Of Rs.28,65,906/- As Commission On 26.9.2011 To M/S International Link Corporation, Iran, A Company Registered In Tehran Without Deducting The Tax At Source As Per Section 195 Of The Act, 1961. Subsequently Notice U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak/For Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Vodafone Spacetal Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.307/CTK/2014, ITA No

ITA 4/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.03, 04, 307 & 308/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Vs. Acit (Tds), Unit-41, E-52, Infocity, Bhubaneswar Chandrasekharpur, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2207 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issues Are Common In All The Appeals, Therefore, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.307/Ctk/2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Facts Narrated Therein. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services In Various Parts Of India. There Was Survey Operation U/S.133A Of The Act In The Premises Of The Assessee On 29.9.2011 & Revenue Found Violation Of Provisions Of Tds & Ita Nos.307 & 308/14 In Non-Deducting Tds In Respect Of Payments Dealt In The Financial Year

For Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhargava, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 194J

Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS-1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.307/CTK/2014, ITA No

ITA 308/CTK/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.03, 04, 307 & 308/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Vs. Acit (Tds), Unit-41, E-52, Infocity, Bhubaneswar Chandrasekharpur, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2207 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issues Are Common In All The Appeals, Therefore, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.307/Ctk/2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Facts Narrated Therein. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services In Various Parts Of India. There Was Survey Operation U/S.133A Of The Act In The Premises Of The Assessee On 29.9.2011 & Revenue Found Violation Of Provisions Of Tds & Ita Nos.307 & 308/14 In Non-Deducting Tds In Respect Of Payments Dealt In The Financial Year

For Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhargava, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 194J

Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS-1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.307/CTK/2014, ITA No

ITA 307/CTK/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.03, 04, 307 & 308/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Vs. Acit (Tds), Unit-41, E-52, Infocity, Bhubaneswar Chandrasekharpur, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2207 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issues Are Common In All The Appeals, Therefore, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.307/Ctk/2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Facts Narrated Therein. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services In Various Parts Of India. There Was Survey Operation U/S.133A Of The Act In The Premises Of The Assessee On 29.9.2011 & Revenue Found Violation Of Provisions Of Tds & Ita Nos.307 & 308/14 In Non-Deducting Tds In Respect Of Payments Dealt In The Financial Year

For Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhargava, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 194J

Vodafone Spacetal Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.307/CTK/2014, ITA No

ITA 3/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.03, 04, 307 & 308/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Vs. Acit (Tds), Unit-41, E-52, Infocity, Bhubaneswar Chandrasekharpur, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2207 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issues Are Common In All The Appeals, Therefore, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.307/Ctk/2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Facts Narrated Therein. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services In Various Parts Of India. There Was Survey Operation U/S.133A Of The Act In The Premises Of The Assessee On 29.9.2011 & Revenue Found Violation Of Provisions Of Tds & Ita Nos.307 & 308/14 In Non-Deducting Tds In Respect Of Payments Dealt In The Financial Year

For Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhargava, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 194J

ITO (OSD) TDS-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vodafone Essar Ld, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 157/MUM/2010[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No. 155-157/Mum/2010: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer (Osd)-Tds-3(1) M/S. Vodafone Essar Ltd. 10Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Penninsula Corporate Park Hospital Building, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaacu 5332 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri B.S. Bisht Assessee By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Sh.Vivek Parekh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.08.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 18.03.2009,Of Cit(A)-14,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Assessment Years(Ay.S).Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Cellular Services In The Region Of Mumbai & Kalyan Circles. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Deal With The Identical Questions,Therefore,We Are Adjudicating Them Together.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Sh.Vivek ParekhFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bisht
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

M/S Tata Seleservices Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/CTK/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.437/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) M/S Tata Teleservices Limited, Vs. Acit(Tds), Bhubaneswar Module-B&C, 3Rd Floor, Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 2438 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Chopra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Ita No.0088/08-09, Dated 03.05.2012, U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Holding That Provisions Of Section 194H Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Are Applicable On The Discounts, On Sale Of Recharge Vouchers & The Starter Kits Made By The Assessee & Also Challenged The Action Of Cit(A) In Respect Of Business Transaction Of The Assessee Based On The Conduct Of The Parties Including The Agreement Entered With Its Distributors To Be That Of Principal To Principal Basis & Not That Of Principal To Agent Basis. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services Comprising Basic

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Chopra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3396/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3396/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Krishnamurthy Srinivasan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 1C, Vanagaram Road, Athipet, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Bbkps4428J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.75,66,470/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

M/S. Ocl India Limited, Sundergarh vs. DDIT(International Taxation), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CTK/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.185/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Ocl India Limited, Vs. Ddit (International Administrative Building, Taxation), Bhubaneswar- At/Po: Rajganpur, 751007 Dist: Sundergarh, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1354 J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumen Adak/ Ashish Poddar, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In It.Appeal No.0262/2013-14, Dated 27.01.2015, Passed U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Sole Substantive Ground That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Treating The Assessee In Default U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act In Respect Of Payment Of Export Commission Of Rs.28,65,906/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Cement & Refractory Products & The Ao Found That The Assessee Paid An Amount Of Rs.28,65,906/- As Commission On 26.9.2011 To M/S International Link Corporation, Iran, A Company Registered In Tehran Without Deducting The Tax At Source As Per Section 195 Of The Act, 1961. Subsequently Notice U/S.201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak/For Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)