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)

ACIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Artemis Medicare Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly deleted the entire addition. Appeal of assessee was allowed

ITA 6527/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit (Tds) Artemis Medicare Service 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Udyog Vihar, Vs. 414/1, 4Th Floor, Phase-V, Gurgaon. बनाम Dda Commercial Complex District Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafca0130M अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) Department By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2017 O R D E R Per Bhavesh Saini, J.M : 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Has Been Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon, Dated 29.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Formerly Known As Artemis Medicare Services Pvt. Ltd., Was Incorporated On 18.05.2004. It Is Registered At Delhi Address & Is Engaged In The Business Of Managing & Operating Of Multi Specialty Hospital & Commenced Its Commercial Operations By Setting Up The Artemis Health Institute, Gurgaon. The Hospital Has Been Utilizing Services Of Number Of 2 Doctors Which Were Categorized As “Employee Doctors” & “Medical Consultants”. The Issue In The Present Appeal Relates To Tds Treatment Given By The Assessee In Respect Of The Following Categories Of Doctors As Consultants & The Table Below Contains Details Of The Payments Made During The Respective Years. F.Y. 2009-2010 F.Y.2010-2011 Classification Of Consultants Si. No. (Rs.) (Rs.) Visiting Consultants (Doctors) 24,576.144 21,404,280 1. Doctors On Revenue Share Only 4,221.348 45,736.094 2. 3. 148.548.444 110,500,340 Doctors On Revenue Share With Minimum Guarantee 4. 65.062.933 79.428.472 Senior Doctors On Minimum Guarantee Consultancy Fees 5. 52,473,845 72,698,048 Junior Doctors On Minimum Guarantee Consultancy Fees Total 294,882,714 329,767,234 ■

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 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)

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)