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)

Anirudh Bhuwalka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 514/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A Nos.513&514/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka.......................................................................……Appellant A.C. Bbhuteria & Co., 2 India Exchange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1 [Pan: Aegpb7445E] Vs. Dcit, Cpc…………….….….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 22.09.2021 & 06.10.2021 Respectively Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.514/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 514/Kol/2021 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 205Section 250

Anirudh Bhuwalka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 513/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A Nos.513&514/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anirudh Bhuwalka.......................................................................……Appellant A.C. Bbhuteria & Co., 2 India Exchange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1 [Pan: Aegpb7445E] Vs. Dcit, Cpc…………….….….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 22.09.2021 & 06.10.2021 Respectively Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.514/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 514/Kol/2021 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 205Section 250