Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.398

Section 201(1A) 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(1A) is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), cited in 663 of the 4,608 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 201(1A)

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.

MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32
9 SCC 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
533
citing judgments
254 ITR 121 (Guj) ITO v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
243 ITR 435 · 2000 · High Court
173
citing judgments
247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 288 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source if the recipient has already paid the income tax directly. The onus is on the deductor to prove that the recipient has paid the tax.

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
8 SCC 266 · 1999 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court
161
citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 0356 (BOMBAY); CIT v. Semiconductor Complex Ltd.
282 ITR 263 · 2006 · High Court
159
citing judgments

An employer making a bona fide estimate of taxable salary income is acting in accordance with established legal precedent.

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

Judgments on Section 201(1A)

Esi Corporation, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 157 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 602/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A. No. 602/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Esi Corporation.……………………………………….........................................Appellant Panchdeep Bhawan, 5/1, Grand Lane, Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Caleo0295B] Ito, (Tds) Ward 57(1)..............................…………………………………………Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Kolkata – 700071 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Saha, Ar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2017 Order Per Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 24, Kolkata Dated 25.01.2016 For The F.Y. 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Rs. 5,36,093/-. The Assessee Is A Esi Corporation & There Is A Survey Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee. In The Course Of The Survey, It Was Noticed That Out Of Rs. 68,00,000/- Appearing In The Head Of Super Speciality Treatment Rs. 28,18,140/-, It Was Stated By The Assessee Before The A.O. The Above Amount Is Utilised For Purchase Of Pace Makers From Shree Coratomic. According To The A.O. The Assessee Could Not Clarify The Balance Amount Of Rs. 39,41,860/- & Therefore

Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, TDS, Cir-3, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed in limine

ITA 1116/KOL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2014-15 Thai Airways International Dcit, (Tds), Circle- बनाम / Public Company Ltd., 3, 10-B, Middleton V/S. Crescent Towers, 8Th Floor, Row, 8Th 229, A.J.C.Bose Road, Floor,Kolkata-71 Kolkata-20 [Pan No.Calto 1865 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ariindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-12-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide Order Dated 09.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-158. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Alleging That There Was Short Deduction Of Tax. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Respective Deductee Must Have Paid Taxes On Such Income & Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Recovering The Tax Under Section 200A Of The Act From The Appellant. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Charging Interest Under Section 201(1A) Of The Act.

Section 200ASection 201Section 250