← All Phrases

“advance tax”

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

The decision most relied on for advance tax is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on advance tax

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.
373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court
199
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT
338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC
313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court
144
citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

Topman Exports v. CIT
342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.
318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar
318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing advance tax

Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5290/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: -------] Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), Room No.24.05, E-2 Block, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, A-27, Friends Colony East, Vs New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaatr0783P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Arpit Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2025

Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)

Appellant duly discharged income-tax liability based on the alternative computation of income in the status of AOP, prepared suo moto, by way of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. [Reliance was placed on PB pg 353-356 for AY 2015-16]. The assessing officer was also duly informed

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

income at the law prevailing on the date when the income has accrued to him and even would have computed and paid the advance tax accordingly. The new provisions cannot revive the barred right or take away the accrued vested right. was a substantive amendment creating new obligation

Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 136/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CITDR
Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

requires to be dropped. 8. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B, 234C and 234D requires to be deleted. 9. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

with effect from 01.06.2013 by Finance Act, 2013, to Section 132B of the Act specifically provides that the existing tax liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Section part C of Chapter XVII. The ld. AR submitted that but the self-assessment liability ... allowed against the ITA Nos. 50 &791/KOL/2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta; A.Ys. 2020-21 & 2021-22 self-assessment tax. The ld. AR submitted that the advance tax and the self-assessment tax are dealt with in separate chapters in the Act. The ld. AR submitted that provisions as regards self-assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Accordingly the ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld

ITA 1439/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 4(3) Avima Exports Private Limited 4Th Ns Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca5857N Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1409/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Tribunal. An affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed. We, after considering the contents of the affidavit and submissions of both sides, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause and the same is condoned.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount of advance tax as required under the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be not maintainable

Vikash Mimani, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1408/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: the Tribunal. An affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay has been filed. We, after considering the contents of the affidavit and submissions of both sides, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause and the same is condoned.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount of advance tax as required under the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be not maintainable

International Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5336/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan- Sr. DR
Section 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 270ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the interest under section 234C of the Act to be calculated on shortfall in deposit of advance tax based on the returned income and not on the assessed income. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete interest

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

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

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

manufacturing a/c as per return of income) (ix) Introduction / addition of high value intangible asset during the year (x) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (business ITR) 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued by Ld. AO to the assessee u/s 142(1) along with

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

manufacturing a/c as per return of income) (ix) Introduction / addition of high value intangible asset during the year (x) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (business ITR) 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued by Ld. AO to the assessee u/s 142(1) along with

Sarfaraz Salim Kacchi, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1935/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 147Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 69

case and has dismissed the appeal referring to provisions of section 249(4) of the Act observing that assessee has not deposited the advance tax. I find that the assessee had not filed the return of income. Even ld.CIT(A) has not referred to 3 Sarfaraz Salim Kacchi any document ... which could suggest that assessee had advance tax liability. I am therefore of the considered view that the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 1038/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

order passed under this Act refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee then- (a) if the refund is out of any advance tax paid or tax deducted at source during financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, interest shall be payable for the period starting from ... refund is less than 10% of the tax determined on regular assessment. (b) if the refund is out of any tax, other than advance tax or tax deducted a source, or penalty, interest shall be payable for the period starting from the date of payment of such tax or penalty

Canon India Pvt. Ltd, Gurugram vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 585/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

order passed under this Act refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee then- (a) if the refund is out of any advance tax paid or tax deducted at source during financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, interest shall be payable for the period starting from ... refund is less than 10% of the tax determined on regular assessment. (b) if the refund is out of any tax, other than advance tax or tax deducted a source, or penalty, interest shall be payable for the period starting from the date of payment of such tax or penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in holding that assessee being an NRI, has paid advance tax of Rs.10 lakhs, the property being ancestral for which the cost of acquisition and improvement is disputed, the addition was made

Alco Suppliers Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that Alco

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) the Calcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were deposited in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) the Calcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were deposited in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that