“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

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

below- 9. Where no return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment year. No whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 4. As per provisions of section ... where no return has been filed by the assessee, the asseessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him otherwise appeal shall not be admitted. The provisions of section 249 (4) of the Act are reproduced as under - Section

Shashwat Verma, London, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3468/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3468/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Shashwat Verma, Flat-34, London House, London Nw8 7Px, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant United Kingdom Pan: Afspv-5520-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(1), R.No. 2109, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 20.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 88 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Reasons For Delay Stated In Application Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 88 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 234C

under the provisions of Section 234C of the Act. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has paid the advance taxes as required by law on or before the due dates and therefore the provisions of Section 234C of the Act are not attracted

Amit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Nerul West vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2284/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Prabhunath Jaiswal, Jaiswal Niwas, Plot No.253 Sector-6, Darshan Darbar Marg, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai - 400706 ............... Appellant Pan : Aibpj1635K V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 28(1)(1) ……………… Respondent Aaykar Bhavan Income Tax Office, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Assessee By : Shri Harshit Kabra, Ca (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Kabra, CA (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

imposed interest towards late filing of retur of income Sec. 234A at Rs. 1509858/- & Sec 234B for default for payment of advance tax at Rs. 14821380/- without providing an opportunity of hearing so that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. There, interest levied us 234A & 234B

Viralbhai Vinodbhai Karia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 270/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

difference of valuation, meaning Viral Vinodbhai Karia v. PCIT assessee suppressed the rate of valuation of stock for limited purpose of not paying the advance tax. However, it did not meant that there was no intention of not paying the self-assessment tax after the end of financial year. During ... accounts. Only valuation difference was found in between physical stock and stock recorded in books of accounts for limited purpose of not paying advance tax. Hence there was discrepancy in valuation of stock as confirmed during scrutiny conducted u/s 143(3). The assessee had surrendered to the discrepancy in valuation

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’s reply. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of advance tax in terms of section 249(4)(b) and wrongly dismissed as ‘non- admitted’ whereas the factual position of assessee’s case is such that ... advance tax or self-assessment tax was payable by assessee. That, the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and it is only on 12.12.2024 when the assessee received a speed-post containing one Page 2 of 11 Suresh Patel ITA Nos. 130 & 131/Ind/2025-

Suresh Patel, Dewas vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

Pravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalpravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Teen Khadki, Nr. Bar Ni Khadki, Ward-5, Village-Nar, Tal. Petlad, Nandiad. Kheda-388150. [Pan :Biqpp9029 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jamin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short), U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Jamin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

please be dropped: 06. 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 and 234C requires to be deleted. 3. The assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:- “That the order

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

erred in allowing the additional ground of chargeability of interest u/s 234B & 234C for non payment of advance tax of MAT without considering the CBDT Circular No 13/2001 dated 9/11/2001. 57.1 The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order. 58. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was assessed under ... aforesaid case observed that the Apex Court decision in Rolta which upheld the livability of interest u/s. 234B & 234C upon failure to pay advance tax was rendered much later i.e., in 2011 and at the time of payment of advance tax by the assessee for the subject year, the decision

Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4128/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, Acit, Circle 27(1), G-202, Kukreja Palace, Vallabh, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Baug Lane, Rajawadi Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Agbpg 9487 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Ramachandran

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50CSection 57

sufficient to meet the advance conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were deposi tax liability and the profits were deposited in the overdraft ted in the overdraft account of the assessee

Dhurba Saikia, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 74/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

below: 9. Where no return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment Not year,whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per applicable section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section ... where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him otherwise appeal shall not be admitted. The provisions of section 249 (4) of the Act are reproduced as under – Section

Dhurba Saikia, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 73/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Feroze Naval Patch, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1269/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 140ASection 140BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234B(2)

Section 234B(2) of the Act, have not been applied properly. The relevant provisions read as under:- “Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax. 234B. (1) ……………………………. (2) Where, before the date of [determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or] completion of a regular assessment ... this section; (ii) thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax.” 7. The aforementioned relevant provision clearly provides that interest shall be calculated up to the date

Shivratan Motilal Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

order, the assessee HUF preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee HUF neither furnished its return of income nor paid any advance tax, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the assessee has not satisfied the condition of making payment of advance tax ... appellant has offered ‘No’ comments at sl. No. 9 of Form- 35 and the appellant failed to made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income. It is, therefore, clear that information, given at sl. no. 9 of Form-35 is correct

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

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

ITA 604/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1. The Appellant Requests Your Honor To Condone The Delay Of 64 Days In Filing The Appeal As The Delay Was Due To Unforeseen Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Siddheshwar Developers and Contractors, Badlapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kalyan

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 in limine on the ground that assessee didn’t pay any advance tax for the year. 3. Ld.AR submitted that there is no dispute that entire sale consideration that led to long term capital gain was tax received

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 71/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Dhurba Saikia, Sonapur Bo vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 70/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

Mahesh Khandelwal, Indore vs. Addl JCIT (A) -1 Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 139(7)Section 143(1)

LIABILITY 825 11,336 31 AGGREGATE INCOME TAX LIABILITY 91,760 4,85,701 |e 32 TDs 0 0 Tcs t) 0 34 aaa ADVANCE TAX 90,000 90,000 35 SELF ASSESSMENT TAX 1,760 1,760 36 TOTAL TAX CREDIT 91,760 91,760 Page 2of5 Page