Section 200(3)

Section 200(3) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 200(3), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Conceria International P Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  CPC has charged s.234E fee in a s.200A intimation for TDS quarters going back to 2010-11. My consultant says the Karnataka High Court struck that down. Does that help me in Tamil Nadu?
  No. The Madras High Court set the Karnataka view in Fatheraj Singhvi against the Gujarat view in Rajesh Kourani, expressly declined to follow Karnataka, and held that s.234E is itself the substantive charge — it bites the moment the statement is late and does not wait for the s.200A(1)(c) machinery inserted on 1 June 2015. The waiver-rejection order was left standing, but the Court decided no separate question about a power of waiver.
• Sajeev Mathew and Company v ITO (TDS), Kochi High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  I have a single consolidated s.234E demand covering 2011-12 right through to 2021-22. Can the old part be knocked out, and can I do it by writ?
  In Kerala, yes. The High Court quashed the demand notice to the extent it charged fee under s.234E for the period from 2011-12 up to 1 June 2015, holding that the insertion of clauses (c) to (f) in s.200A(1) took effect only from that date and is prospective. The rest of the demand was left standing.
• Rajesh Kourani v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  Is there High Court authority that the s.234E fee runs from 1 July 2012 whatever the 2015 amendment to s.200A did, and does paying the fee buy me out of s.271H penalty?
  Yes on the first, no on the second. The Gujarat High Court held that s.234E is the charging provision and s.200A merely machinery, that a machinery provision cannot override a charging provision, and that even before 1 June 2015 the Revenue could always calculate and collect the fee. It also held, against Karnataka, that the s.234E fee is not in lieu of the s.271H penalty — the two are independent levies.
• Rashmikant Kundalia v Union of India High CourtHelps department
  I filed my TDS statement late and have been charged Rs.200 a day under section 234E — is that levy even constitutional when no service is given in return?
  Yes. The Bombay High Court upheld section 234E on 9 February 2015. The levy is not punitive: it is a fixed charge for the extra work the Department must do because the statement came in late, and the deductor gets something in return — his late filing is regularised and he is allowed to file beyond the prescribed time. That is a privilege and a special service, so the charge is a fee and not a tax in disguise. The absence of a power to condone delay and of a right of appeal does not make the section onerous, a right of appeal being a creature of statute. The writ petition was dismissed.
• Star Quenchers Spirit Pvt Ltd v JCIT (TDS), Nashik ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My quarterly TDS and TCS statements for 2010-11 were filed late and the JCIT has levied penalty at Rs 100 a day under section 272A(2)(k). No tax was lost. Is that a defence?
  No. The Pune Bench upheld a penalty of Rs 1,09,304 under section 272A(2)(k) read with section 200(3), holding that the absence of loss to the Revenue does not mean the deductor may skip the obligation to file quarterly statements within the statutory time. It followed the Allahabad High Court in Raja Harpal Singh Inter College v PCIT, noting that no decision of the jurisdictional High Court had been brought to its notice.
• Kooud Software P Ltd v DDIT (CPC) - TDS ITATHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The CIT(A) has confirmed my pre-June-2015 s.234E fee by following the Gujarat High Court, even though my jurisdictional High Court has decided the other way. Is the Tribunal bound to follow my own High Court?
  Yes. The Bangalore Bench held that the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi is the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, and deleted the s.234E fee for all nine quarters, notwithstanding that the CIT(A) had preferred the Gujarat High Court's contrary decision in Rajesh Kourani. The fee under s.234E cannot be levied without the machinery provision of s.200A.
• Statutory position — s.200A: the CPC computes tax, interest and the s.234E fee on a TDS statement and issues an intimation CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  CPC has sent me an intimation under section 200A with a late fee on it. What does section 200A actually let them compute, when did the fee limb go in, and can I appeal it?
  Section 200A is the machinery for processing a quarterly TDS statement under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Sub-section (1) runs (a) to (f): correct arithmetical errors and incorrect claims apparent from the statement, compute interest, compute the fee under section 234E, determine the sum payable or the refund, send an intimation, and grant the refund. The fee limb is clause (c), and the old clauses (c), (d) and (e) became (d), (e) and (f) when section 52 of the Finance Act, 2015 substituted clauses (c) to (f) for clauses (c) to (e) with effect from 1 June 2015 — so a submission that still calls the intimation clause (d) or the refund clause (e) is describing the law before that date. Under the 1961 Act the intimation cannot be sent after one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed, and that limit sits in the proviso to sub-section (1), not in sub-section (2); under the successor provision, section 399 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, the same one-year limit is sub-section (2) itself. The intimation is deemed a notice of demand under the proviso to section 156, is appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246A(1)(a), and can be rectified under section 154(1)(c). Whether a section 234E fee can be charged in a section 200A intimation for a quarter before 1 June 2015 is the point on which the High Courts have split — Karnataka and Kerala for the deductor, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madras for the Revenue — and which High Court you are in decides it.
• Statutory position — s.201: who is deemed an assessee in default, the Form 26A escape that covers non-deduction only, one per cent and one and one-half per cent for two different periods, and the six-year limit from 1 April 2025 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  The TDS officer has passed an order under section 201 treating me as an assessee in default and has added interest under section 201(1A). Who exactly is in default, what gets me out of it, which interest rate runs for which period, and how far back can he go?
  Section 201(1) deems a person who does not deduct, does not pay, or after deducting fails to pay the whole or any part of the tax to be an assessee in default in respect of that tax. Its first proviso takes him out of that deeming, but only for a failure to deduct, and only if the payee has furnished his return under section 139, has taken the sum into account in computing income in that return and has paid the tax due on the income declared — and the deductor furnishes a certificate to that effect from an accountant, which rule 31ACB requires in Form 26A. Interest under section 201(1A) runs at two rates for two different periods: one per cent for every month or part of a month from the date the tax was deductible to the date it was deducted, and one and one-half per cent for every month or part of a month from the date it was deducted to the date it was actually paid. Where the first proviso to section 201(1) rescues the deductor from the tax, the proviso to section 201(1A) still charges the one per cent, from the date the tax was deductible to the date the payee furnished his return. Since 1 April 2025 an order under section 201(1) for a failure to deduct cannot be made after six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, or two years from the end of the financial year in which a correction statement is delivered under the first proviso to section 200(3), whichever is later; until 31 March 2025 the figure was seven years and the limit protected only a failure to deduct from a person resident in India. Section 201 governs a default on a sum paid or credited up to 31 March 2026; where the earlier of credit or payment falls on or after 1 April 2026, the consequences provision is section 398 of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
• Statutory position — s.271H replaced s.272A(2)(k) for TDS and TCS statements from 1 July 2012 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The TDS officer has levied a penalty for a late quarterly statement. Which section applies — the daily penalty in section 272A(2)(k) or section 271H — and what gets me out of it?
  It depends on when the tax was deducted or collected. For tax deducted or collected before 1 July 2012 the penalty is under section 272A(2)(k) at Rs 100 for every day of default, capped by the proviso at the amount of tax deductible or collectible. For tax deducted or collected on or after 1 July 2012 the second proviso to section 272A(2) bars that penalty altogether and section 271H applies instead — a sum of not less than Rs 10,000 and up to Rs 1,00,000, directed by the Assessing Officer, with an escape in section 271H(3) which since 1 April 2025 requires the statement to have been filed within ONE MONTH of the prescribed time, not one year.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.