“advance tax”

Chapter XVII - Collection & Recovery (Advance tax)Chapter XVII-CSection 2(1) / Chapter XVII-C / ITR Schedule IT1,785 judgments

ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

taking cognizance of the fact that the\nassessee who had not filed his return of income had failed to pay the\namount of advance tax as required per the mandate of Section 249(4)(b)\nof the Act, declined to admit the appeal by treating the same as\ninfructuous ... Where no return has been filed by the appellant for Not\nthe assessment year, whether an amount equal to applicable\nthe amount of advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b)\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid\n3. 2. As per provisions of Section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUBMAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3751/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Reliance Industrial Principal Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Limited, Tax – 3, 5Th Floor, Nkm International House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 178 Backbay Reclamation Marine Maharshi Karve Road, Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaacr7637P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Reduction in profit because of application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards. 2. Large refund claimed out of advance tax (Business ITR). 3. Deductees have claimed tax deduction against salary by a TAN in their ITRs, however, corresponding TDS statements are either not filed

VANDANA SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO 5(2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

having income beyond thrash hold limit for the year under appeal and also was not liable neither to file ITR nor the payment of advance tax. Further, her written explanation was also arbitrarily rejected. 2.That the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward 5(2)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar, has passed assessment order ... view of ld. CIT(A) the assessee having not filed the return of income has also not deposited amount of advance tax payable by 4 Vandana Singh v. ITO him, despite the submissions made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is teacher of younger children home

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Income\n38/PB-1\n35/PB-1\n32/PB-1\n57\nC Finance Charges Ledger\n74\n75-76\n77\nNA\nD Excess Interest reversal\nNA\nNA\nNA\n78\nE Advance Tax Ledger\n79-81\n82-83\n84-86\n87-90\nF Balance Sheet\n61\n65\n67\n70\n5. As can be seen from above, the interest ... under Section 37 of the Act.\nInterest levied under Sections 234B and 234C is indeed imposed for default or deferment in the payment of advance tax and is generally considered penal or compensatory in nature. As such, the payment itself is typically not deductible as a business expense, and Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Income\n38/PB-1\n35/PB-1\n32/PB-1\n57\nC Finance Charges Ledger\n74\n75-76\n77\nNA\nD Excess Interest reversal\nNA\nNA\nNA\n78\nE Advance Tax Ledger\n79-81\n82-83\n84-86\n87-90\nF Balance Sheet\n61\n65\n67\n70\n5. As can be seen from above, the interest ... under Section 37\nof the Act.\nInterest levied under Sections 234B and 234C is indeed imposed for default or\ndeferment in the payment of advance tax and is generally considered penal or\ncompensatory in nature. As such, the payment itself is typically not deductible\nas a business expense, and Section

SHANTI DEVI JAIN MEMORIAL TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee hence we decided to hear

SHRI TARIQ AHMAD DAR,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

appeal by the Ld. first appellate authority by refusing to admit the same for adjudication on merits , on account of non-payment of advance tax coupled with the fact of non - filing of regular return , in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions ... crores, in bank account). 7. The Ld AR submitted before the tribunal that the assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax u/s 210 of the Act, and has filed a computation of income disclosing total income of Rs. 2.44 lakhs for the year under appeal, (which is made

TEHMINA K KATRAK CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 549/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 11Section 119Section 139Section 154Section 92E

within the\ndue date (without extension under Circular No.9/2021, Circular\nNo.17/2021 and this Circular) provided in that Act, shall be deemed to\nbe the advance tax.\" (Emphasis Supplied)\n5. Thus, extended time till 15/03/2022, was granted for filing return of\nincome for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. In the present

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

come to Calcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were the conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

noted that in Woolcomber's case (supra) the\nCalcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were\nsufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were\ndeposited in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case\nit should be presumed that

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2367/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(13)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 92C

234C at Rs.44,71,149/-. The learned Counsel submits that interest under Section 234B of the Act is payable for default in payment of advance tax beginning from April 1 of the month following the end of the previous year till the completion of assessment under Section ... calculated on estimation basis in the previous year itself though such income is chargeable to tax during the assessment year and such estimated advance tax is deposited to the government exchequer in advance. Advance tax is payable on current income in instalments during the previous year as per the provisions

ODISHA TELEVISION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 6501/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

have been made in the\nintimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and to be fully deleted.\n7. Non Credit of:\n(i) Advance Tax of Rs.8,25,00,000/-\n(ii) Self Assessment Tax of Rs.1,59,59,163/-\n(iii) TDS of Rs.3 ... That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid total\ntax paid of Rs.12,96,40,116/- comprising of Advance Tax of\nRs.8,25,00,000/-, Self Assessment Tax of Rs.1,59,59,163/-, TDS of\nRs.3

MEHAL SINGH,JHALLIAN KHURD,RUPNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), ROPAR, ROPAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

invoking section 249(4)(b) on the ground that since no return of income had been filed, the assessee was required to pay an advance tax equivalent amount before filing the appeal and in the absence thereof, the appeal was not maintainable. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel ... accordance with law. 9.1 Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an appropriate application before the Ld. CIT(A) seeking exemption from payment of advance tax. Upon such application being filed, the Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issue of non-deposit of advance tax in respect of the disputed

KASHYAP WIND & SOLAR ENERGY PVT. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 810/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Aastha Maniar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessee by following remarks: “ Since the appellant has not filed ITR as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is in fructuous and it, therefore, dismissed. 5. The appeal

MRS. PARNAL NISHANT MEHAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8389/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of the fact that the assessee has not paid advance tax in terms of section 249(4) of the Act. 6. Against the said order and findings of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee ... further liability on the assessee in respect of the salary income. 9. Regarding findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in terms of non-discharge of advance tax liability it was submitted that firstly where the transaction has already been offered to tax in the hands of the husband of the assessee

PARNAL NISHANT MEHAR,MAHARASHTRA vs. AO WARD 42(3)(1) , MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8264/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

appeal\nbefore the Ld.CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on\naccount of the fact that the assessee has not paid advance tax in terms of\nsection 249(4) of the Act.\n6. Against the said order and findings of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee ... nalready been offered to tax in the hands of the husband of the assessee,\nthere is no liability on the assessee towards the advance tax liability,\nsecondly in terms of salary income, the same has already suffered taxation\nby way of TDS and on that account itself, there

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate, etc., are required to be completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of\ntax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as\nreduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act\nand any amount shown in the balance-sheet ... towards depreciation;\n(iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount\nof tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax\npayment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under\nthe Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over

RINKI SINGH ,JAMSHEDPUR TELCO vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has failed to make payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income as per the information given at serial No. 9 of Form No. 35 as provided in clause ... section (4) of Section 249 of the Act. Since the appellant has filed a belated return and not paid the advance tax, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal

Showing 1–20 of 1,785 · Page 1 of 90

...