https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465722 The dominant issue was whether interest paid under s. 201(1A) for delayed remittance of TDS is penal in nature or represents a payment for breach of law, so as to be disallowable under s. 37. Relying on SC jurisprudence distinguishing compensatory interest from penalty where the statute separately provides for penalties, and HC/ITAT rulings treating s. 201(1A) interest as compensatory for delay rather than a sanction for illegality, the Tribunal held that such interest is not akin to income-tax or a penalty and is not hit by s. 37. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the disallowance, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 22:17:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465722 The dominant issue was whether interest paid under s. 201(1A) for delayed remittance of TDS is penal in nature or represents a payment for breach of law, so as to be disallowable under s. 37. Relying on SC jurisprudence distinguishing compensatory interest from penalty where the statute separately provides for penalties, and HC/ITAT rulings treating s. 201(1A) interest as compensatory for delay rather than a sanction for illegality, the Tribunal held that such interest is not akin to income-tax or a penalty and is not hit by s. 37. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the disallowance, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465722