Section 201 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.398

Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226), cited in 576 of the 1,566 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 201

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
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 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.

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
172 ITR 257 · 1988 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Judgments on Section 201

DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1385/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.1385 & 1386/Mum/2015:िनधा"रण अपील वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit(It)-2(2)(1), M/S. Ingram Micro India Limited, Godrej I.T. Park, B-Block, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Pirojshahnagar, Lbs Road, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 79 Pan : Aabct 1296 R (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या ""या ""या"े"े"े"ेप /Co.No.169 & 170/Mum/2015:िनधा"रण ""या वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Ingram Micro India Limited, Vs. Dcit(It)-2(2)(1), Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 79 Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Mohandas - Dr Assessee By: Shri P.B. Chhapgar – Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम 1961 1961 क" धारा 1961 क" धारा क" धारा 254 क" धारा 254 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश 254 के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- के अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 30/10/2014 Of The Cit(A)-10, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed The Above Appeals/Cross Objections (Co.S).

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Chhapgar – CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohandas - DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

ITO, WD-(It), Kolkata vs. M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.642/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2012-2013) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd., (International Taxation), 687, Anandapur, E.M.Bypass, Ward, Kolkata, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700107 Room No. 215 Aayakar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipalli,Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 1428 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Jcit Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, In Appeal No.111/Cit(A)-22/Kol/14-13, Dated 20.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 201(1)/1A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company, M/S.Emami Paper Mills Limited, Hereafter Called As ‘Deductor’ Has Remitted Some Amount To A Non-Resident Company Of Poland Without Deducting Taxes. Show Cause Notice U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued To The Deductor. In Response, The Deductor Company Submitted M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)