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)

State Bank of India, Samb Branch (04262), Chandigarh vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1082/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.997/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Commercial Branch (09926), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 101-106, Chandigarh Vs. Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-15771-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.998/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) बनाम/ Punjab University Branch (0742), Sector 17E Vs. Sector 14 Chandigarh 160014 Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-13563-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.999/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Sme Branch (11705), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 43-48, Third Floor, Sector 17 Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh Now At Sco 103-107 Sector 8 Chandigarh 160009 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-17512-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chandi/2025

Section 192Section 271C

State Bank of India, Zonal Office (15875), Pathankot vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1081/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.997/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Commercial Branch (09926), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 101-106, Chandigarh Vs. Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-15771-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.998/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) बनाम/ Punjab University Branch (0742), Sector 17E Vs. Sector 14 Chandigarh 160014 Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-13563-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.999/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Sme Branch (11705), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 43-48, Third Floor, Sector 17 Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh Now At Sco 103-107 Sector 8 Chandigarh 160009 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-17512-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chandi/2025

Section 192Section 271C

State Bank of India, Central Pension Processing Center, Chandigarh vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1001/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 May 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.997/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Commercial Branch (09926), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 101-106, Chandigarh Vs. Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-15771-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.998/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) बनाम/ Punjab University Branch (0742), Sector 17E Vs. Sector 14 Chandigarh 160014 Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-13563-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.999/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) State Bank Of India Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Sme Branch (11705), Sector 17E बनाम/ Sco 43-48, Third Floor, Sector 17 Chandigarh Vs. Chandigarh Now At Sco 103-107 Sector 8 Chandigarh 160009 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan Aaacs-8577-K / Ptls-17512-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chandi/2025

Section 192Section 271C

Arnon Builders and Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 73 (1), Delhi

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

ITA 5263/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Arnon Builders & Developers Vs Dcit Pvt.Ltd., Unit No.101, 1St Floor, Circle-73(1), World Mark-2, Asset -8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Aerocity, Igi Airport, South West Delhi, Delhi-110037. Pan- Aafca9046G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/ Addl/Jcit (A) Bhubaneswar [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10241971 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Order Dated 16.08.2023 Passed U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Heard The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That In The Instant Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing That The Same Was Withdrawn By The Assessee. Whereas The Ld. Ar Submits That No Such Prayer Was Made For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Under Reference. Under These Circumstances, We Set Aside The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Remand The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) With Direction To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee After Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Also Directed To Participate In Proceedings Before Ld. Cit(A) & File All The Relevant Details In Support Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken. With These Directions, All The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 201(1)Section 250

Refop India Company, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 78(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3649/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalrefop India Company Dy. Cit, Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle-78(1), Sector-B, Pocket No.7, Plot Vs. Delhi. No.11, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacr3007K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 19.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10240230 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Observed That Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Orders Ex-Parte Without Providing Sufficient Opportunities Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Thereby Confirming The Order Of The Ao. The Assessee In Ground Of Appeal No. 1 Has Challenged The Orders Of Cit(A) For Not Providing Reasonable Opportunities Of Being Heard. Refop India Company Vs. Dcit 4. We Have Heard The Parties & Considered The Facts Of The Case. From The Perusal Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Observed That Only Three Opportunities Were Provided By Ld. Cit(A) To File Submissions & When The Assessee Failed To File Any Written Submission, Cit(A) Proceeded To Disposed-Off The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Exparte Sand Further Confirmed The Order Of Ao On Merits Also. It Is True That Assessee Did Not Comply To Any Of Notice Issued By Ld. Cit(A) & Did Not File Requisite Details/Documents In Support Of The Claim Made In Grounds Of Appeals.

Section 201(1)