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)

Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO-TDS, W-1(3), Income Tax Office, TDS Ward

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 825/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.825/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Air Transport Corporation Ito-Tds बनाम (Assam) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-1(3), 1-D, Lakshmi Bhavan, Chennai. / Vs. No.609, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaaca-5364-L / Cheao-1050-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil Sharma, (Ca)-Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-10-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-05-2023 In The Matter Of An Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 201 (1) / 201(1A) Of The Act On 21-03-2023 Raising Certain Demand Against The Assessee For Want Of Tds On Rental Payments. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Sharma, (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT TDS Circle-, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 601/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.600 & 601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 United India Insurance Co. Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of The Chief Manager, Cfac Department, Income Tax, Tds Circle, Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Panaji, Goa 403 001. Ltd., United India Nalanda, Door No.- 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Both Dated 17.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 22 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 17(2)(iv)Section 201Section 201(1)

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT TDS Circle-, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 600/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.600 & 601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 United India Insurance Co. Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of The Chief Manager, Cfac Department, Income Tax, Tds Circle, Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Panaji, Goa 403 001. Ltd., United India Nalanda, Door No.- 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Both Dated 17.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 22 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 17(2)(iv)Section 201Section 201(1)

Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO(TDS), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)