“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

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 1735/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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 1734/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

Section 11

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Sura, Surat vs. Pipodra Textile Park LLP, Surat

ITA 795/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 153CSection 250

Shri Sunil J. Shah and Shri Sanjay J. Shah is not correct. (iv) Credits of cheques received of Rs. 20.50 Cr. include the advance tax payments made by the assessee LLP of Rs. 6.00 Cr. Payments of advance tax cannot be said to be amounts received by cheques ... fully aware of actual dates and data, J.V. entries have been made on estimated basis. Even the payments of advance tax made by assessee LLP was entered as amounts received in cheques. In this way, as against the payments received of Rs. 13.50 Cr. through RTGS, data entries have been

Rama Damu Bhagat, Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2109/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 144Section 148Section 207(2)Section 207(2)(b)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 48

NFAC erred in dismissing, by not admitting, the appeal for non-fulfillment of condition prescribed u/s 249(4)(b) for payment of advance tax. 3) The Ld. and Hon'ble CIT(A)-NAFC erred in not appreciating provisions of section 207(2) and did not appreciate the facts that ... considered by the AO. 3.2 However, Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2023 dismissed the appeal on the ground that Assessee has not paid any advance tax, hence as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, appeal is not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT

Narsinga Rao Aleti, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

ITA 1419/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in assuming that the assessee is liable to pay advance tax, therefore, further erred in assuming that the appeal is not liable to be admitted. 3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the notice ... Narsinga Rao Aleti vs. ITO was obligated to have paid an amount equivalent to the amount of advance tax that was payable by him failing which the appeal did not merit admission. Accordingly, the CIT(A) observing that the assessee had failed to comply with the statutory obligation that

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

made in the Return of Income ('ROI') by the appellant and the Learned AO had duly examined all the details related thereto such as advance tax, provision of tax, self-assessment of tax paid by the appellant for the year under consideration and therefore, the Assessment Order ought ... provisions of section 263 of the Act; 2.3. The Learned PCIT has erred in not considering the fact that amount of taxes paid (advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax) for the year under consideration are nearly close to the amount of the provision of tax made in the books

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Harshvardhan Management & Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1797/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Harshvardhan Management Income Tax Officer & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ward-10(1)(1), R.H. 19, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Powai Vihar R.H.S. Ltd. M.K. Road, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabch9837J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashok Patil For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act as well as has not paid an amount equivalent to amount of advance tax which was payable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was held not maintainable in light of section 249(4) and the same

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

fact, the Ld. CIT(A) misconstrued “the request of the appellant to adjust the seized cash towards Self-Assessment Tax Liability” wrongly as “Advance Tax Liability”. xii. That the Ld. CIT(A) completely ignored the fact that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions regarding payment of self assessment tax ... contained in Chapter XIV u/s 140A while the provisions regarding payment of advance tax are contained in Part C of Chapter XVII under section 207 to Section 219. The requirement of payment of advance tax before the end of relevant Financial Year is on estimated income relating to that

Singaravel Raja, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 2172/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2172/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Singaravel Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 5/459, Pandur Village, Main Road, Vs. Ward-1, Pandur P.O., Ulundurpet Tk, Villupuram. Villupuram – 606 102. Pan: Aoopr 0652P

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appeal ex-parte on the ground that the assessee had neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount equal to the advance tax payable, and accordingly held the appeal to be infructuous. 3. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) submitted before us that the assessment order, based

Sri Lakshmi General Stores, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 479/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199Section 7(1)(b)

commission and the same has been accounted as its income. The corresponding TDS deducted on sales value by the traders has been claimed as advance tax paid on TDS because, the income embedded in said transactions has already been offered to tax and that

Sri Lakshmi General Stores, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 478/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199Section 7(1)(b)

Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

ITA 755/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. 100, Saroj Niwas, Ruikar Vs. Colony, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aiapm7745G अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrukh Mohammad Munir Mulla Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay Of 172 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Condone The Delay Of 172 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Incorrect Assessment Year: The Sale Of The Property On 12.04.2018 Should Be Taxable In Ay 2019-20, But It Has Been Incorrectly Assessed In Ay 2018- 19 By The Assessing Officer. 2. Proportional Taxation: The Assessee'S Ownership Is Only 50% & Hence The Capital Gain Should Be Taxed Proportionately. The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Account For This.

For Appellant: Shri Farrukh MohammadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 148A

maximum amount not chargeable to tax i.e. 2,50,000 – interest income)) * 20%. The Assessing Officer has used an incorrect formula. 5. TDS and Advance Tax Credit: TDS on property and interest, as well as advance tax paid, should be given credit in the correct assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Vivek Gupta, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1557/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 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

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

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

ITA 1456/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 350/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 426/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nissar Ahmad Bulla Ito Sopore, Iqbal Nagar, Sopore बनाम/ Ward-1 S.O Badam Bagh, Srinagar Vs. Baramulla-193201 (J&K) "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ajrpb-8879-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (Ca)- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () In Aforesaid Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, 1. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Quantum Addition For Rs.22.67 Lacs & Confirmation Of Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.5.25 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Quantum Appeal Ita No.350/Asr/2024, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation

For Appellant: Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(C)

lower authorities. It has been stated that the appeals have been dismissed merely on the ground that the assessee did not paid advance tax in terms of Sec.249(4)(b). The Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee has paid taxes of Rs.1

Shri Nissar Ahmad Bhulla, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/ASR/2024[2013-147]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2013-147

For Appellant: Shri. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(C)

Yogesh Transport Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1326/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 69C

from transporters, violating the TDS provisions. The levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C is valid as it is mandatory for default in advance tax payment. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is justified due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the claimed expenses