“ advance tax ”

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.

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.

373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court

199

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

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.

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

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.

338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court

152

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC

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.

313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court

144

342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court

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

121

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

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.

318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court

119

318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court

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

119

ITA 2198/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

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

Addl CIT Sp RG 22, Mumbai vs. Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

Under section. 140A as amended w.e.f. 1.4.1889, where any tax is payable on the basis of the return after taking into account the advance tax, such amount shall be paid by the assessee together with interest payable u/s, 2348 for any default or delay in payment of the advance tax ... assesse Tax on Income assessed 1,74,48,298 1,74,48,298 Less: TDS credit allowed 6,71,889 6,71,889 Advance tax paid 1,12,50,000 1,12,50,000 Balance tax payable 55,24,409 55,24,409 B Interest paid by assessee on Self

Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. Range 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1581/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

Tirumaiah Sunil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Bangalore was dismissed. The dismissal was on account that assessee has not paid Page 2 of 6 the amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable by him if no return of income has been filed, invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee ... holding that assessee has not deposited tax. It was submitted that as there was no income of the assessee, there cannot be any advance tax payable by the assessee. 8. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. lower authorities stating that assessee did not appear before

Syed Asif Ali, Lucknow vs. DCIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Syed Asif Ali, Vs. Dcit-1, 4/19 Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, U.P. Lucknow Pan: Aedpa5031J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Addl / Jcit(A), Ahmedabad Dated 27.01.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl / Jcit Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 22.07.2022, In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Aggregated Additions Of Rs. 3,04,76,240/-Made By The Assessing Authority To The Returned Income Of The Assessee While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act By Grossly Ignoring The Settled Law That The Provisions Contained U/S 143(1) Of The Act Does Not Empower The Assessing Officer To Make Any Addition Which Is In The Nature Of Debate & Discussions & Also Requires Detailed Explanations & Submissions From The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,33,88,200/-Made By The Ld. A.O. On The Wrong Premise That The Amount Of The Contingent Liabilities Of Rs.2,33,88,200/- Disclosed By The Auditors At Column 21(G) Of Their Form 3Cd Were Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Of The Year Under Consideration Ignoring The Fact That It Was Just A Disclosure Of The Contingent

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR

Section 143(1)

returned by him or where no return had been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax that was payable by him. He, therefore, issued a notice to the assessee on 27.12.2024, pointing this out to the assessee and asking

Purshottam Rathore, Ratlam vs. ITO 1(2), Ujjain

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Jasmer Singh, Naraingarh, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambala

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

ITA 967/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, but did not file the return of income nor deposit any amount equal to advance tax payable. 4. The CIT(A), after issuing notice u/s 249(4)(b) requiring proof of payment of advance tax, recorded that the assessee neither responded ... held that where no return is filed, the appeal cannot be admitted unless an amount equal to the advance tax payable has been paid. As the assessee failed to comply, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable/infructuous without going into the merits 5. Aggrieved by the order

Basf India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92C

assessee as per Final assessment order. However in the computation sheet forming part of said reassessment order, the credit for dividend distribution tax, advance tax, self-assessment tax and regular assessment taxes paid till the date of passing such re-assessment order was not granted. BASF India Ltd. Mumbai ... dated 31 March 2025 for giving effect to the APA and modified return of income filed by the Appellant, wherein the credit for advance tax, self- assessment tax and regular assessment taxes paid by the assessee (including by way of refund adjustment) has been granted. 8. However

Basf India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92C

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar Jolly, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

ITA 520/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the request for not adjusting the money lying in PD A/c against advance tax liability/self-assessment tax and charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which ... Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not adjusting the money lying in PD a/c against advance tax liability/self-assessment tax and charged interest u/s 234 B & 234 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/- deserves

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent \n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

ITA 519/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

case the Learned C T(A) has erred in rejecting the request for not adjusting the money lying in PD A/c against advance tax liability/self-assessment tax and charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs. 19,08,302/- and Rs. 40,656/-which ... same on the income determined vide this appellate order. Further, as regards appellant submission regarding non adjustment of money lying in PD a/c against advance tax, without going into the merits or otherwise of the contention, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable because as can be seen from

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the request for not adjusting the money lying in PD A/c against advance tax liability/self-assessment tax and charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax ... same on the income determined vide this appellate order. Further, as regards appellant submission regarding non adjustment of money lying in PD a/c against advance tax, without going into the merits or otherwise of the contention, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable because as can be seen from

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

admitting the statutory appeal preferred by the appellant as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act for non-payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act and thereby not adjudicating the issues on merits of the matter, on the facts ... provisions of clause [b] of sub-section [4] of Section 249 of the Act ought to have made the payment of amount equal to advance tax which was due on its income and consequently has erroneously not admitted the appeal preferred by the appellant, on the facts and circumstances

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

sale consideration of Rs. 3,04,45,000/- was paid to the assessee, out of which 6 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala advance tax and tax deducted at source (TDS) were deposited, and only the balance amount of Rs. 28,41,320/- was received in his bank account ... disputed. i) The assessee is presumably aware of the burden of taxation in regard to long term capital gains tax, has paid huge advance tax by taking money from the buyer and has claimed the same as refund in the return of income. 5.6 On a careful consideration

Shakuntla Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 163/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

could not file her return of income within due date for the year under consideration due to murder of her son. The assessee paid advance tax of Rs.1,60,000/- for the assessment year in question and Form 26AS was attached. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued ... balance sheet, capital A/c, copy of VAT return reflecting sales thereof furnished by the assessee. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee deposited advance tax of Rs.1,60,000/- before the end of the financial year and the assessee failed to file return of income due to unnatural death

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 710/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

learned CIT(A) raised a ground that the AO in arriving the tax liability has not correctly considered the prepaid taxes paid through advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. 24.1 The learned CIT(A) considered the argument of the assessee and held the issue of providing the credit ... learned CIT(A) that while computing the tax liability, the AO had failed to grant correct credit of prepaid taxes in the form of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. The learned CIT(A) after examining the contention, rightly observed that grant of credit for prepaid taxes

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 709/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

ITA 708/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)