← 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

Bitush and Rajib Construction Private Limited, Nadia vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 204/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 204/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Bitush & Rajib Construction Private Limited,…………………………………………………Appellant Bagula Asram, Para Bagula, Bagula S.O., Nadia-741502, West Bengal [Pan:Aaccb8461D] -Vs.- Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,……………………………………….....Respondent Vadodara Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)

Addl./JCIT(Appeals) that despite the request, the assessee neither submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim nor provided necessary reconciliation of advance tax on total sales. In a nutshell, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer when assessee could not be able

Chandra Bros., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

consequently given rise to an additional tax liability of Rs.4825150/-, inclusive of all interests attributable to the alleged defaults with regard to the Advance Tax payment liabilities. In the clarificatory cum adjustment note, appended to the Intimation, so raised, it has been conveyed that the aforementioned amount of Rs.11467009

Gauri Sagar Shivale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 101/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 2(47)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 80T

ground that the assessee has not filed valid return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by the assessee on assessed income. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below : “3. I have ... Where no return has been filed by the appellant for Not applicable the assessment year, 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 3.2 As per provisions of section

Rameshbhai Prajapati, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblerameshbhai Prajapati, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 242/2, Sector 1 C, Income-Tax, Gandhinagar-382001 Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar [Pan :Ackpp 9936 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)

hence it requires to be drop. 05. 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 brief facts of the case are that

Sanjaybhai Shantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsanjaybhai Shantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-305, Ward-5(3)(1), Shivalaya-3, Ahmedabad. 100 Ft Road, Near Hetvi Tower, Satellite Ahmedabad-380015. [Pan :Bopps6924 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jamin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) /National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

For Appellant: Shri Jamin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 69

require to be deleted. 07. The assessee has not made any 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 addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- has been made

Kishorchandra Motilal Rajput, Bharuch vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

tax, interest and fee, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, 84[any relief allowable under section 89,] any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section

Harshvadan Natvarlal Chavda, Bharuch vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

tax, interest and fee, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, 84[any relief allowable under section 89,] any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Jayaraj Jaison, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2512/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.58,60,000/- in total Rs.1,50,60,000/- as business income for the A.Y.2020-21 and assured to pay the advance tax accordingly. Please give the date within which the advance tax will be fully remitted? Answer: As admitted by me in reply to question nos.8 ... books of accounts, I admit Rs.1,50,60,000/- as - 4 - ITA No.2512/CHNY/2024 business income for the A.Y.2020-21, and I as remit the advance tax before 15-03-2020.” 9. Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.12.2020, declaring a total income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chitoor

ITA 2298/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 50Section 50B

giving rise to capital gain from slump sale amounting to Rs.52,47,28,399/-. The assessee ought to have been paid the advance tax on the same. 9. Therefore, the AO came to a conclusion that the Long Term Capital Loss on sale of shares to the tune of Rs.24.00

Surender Sharma, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-4, Panipat

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 557/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 557/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Surender Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O J. B. Sharma, Adv., Ward-4, 72, Bmk Market, Nr Hotel Hive, G. Panipat, T. Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana-132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cfhps7057B Assessee By : Sh. J. B. Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059098895(1) Dated 27.12.2023, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. J. B. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee's lower appeal "in limine" for want of payment of advance tax thereby invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have upheld the Assessing Officer's 2 Surender Sharma action making section ... dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC's lower appellate discussion about the assessee's advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 38/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

appeal, by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on the ground that assessee has not deposited the advance -tax, as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari ITA No.37 & 38 /RJT/2025 ... income was below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the assessee under consideration did not supposed to pay the advance tax. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both these appeals of the assessee, stating that assessee has failed to pay the advance tax

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

appeal, by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on the ground that assessee has not deposited the advance -tax, as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari ITA No.37 & 38 /RJT/2025 ... income was below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the assessee under consideration did not supposed to pay the advance tax. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both these appeals of the assessee, stating that assessee has failed to pay the advance tax

Ayeshabee Babu Khan, Mankhured vs. ITO 27 1 1 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2887/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailayeshabee Babu Khan, 1, Mankhured Station Road, T.F. Donar S.O., Mumbai – 400088 ............... Appellant Pan : Cgopk4227M V/S Ito – 27(1)(1), Vashi Railway Station, ……………… Respondent 3X7X Gqp 3Rd & 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 251

section 249(4) of the Act, in case the assessee did not file return of income, it is required to pay the amount of advance tax. However, in the instant case, as the assessee neither filed the return of income nor paid the amount equal to the amount of advance

Yadvendra Pratap Singh, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Rudrapur

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 39/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 39/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Yaduvendra Pratap Chand Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered Ward -2 (1)(5), Bhagwada Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Kichha Road Rudrapur, U. Dehradun-248001 S. Nagar, Uttarakhand, Pan: Aghpc5432F Dehradun Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Mattal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025

Section 144Section 249(4)

complied with the provision of Section 249(4) of the Act as the Assessee has failed to pay the taxes equal to amount to advance tax which was payable by him. Therefore, sought for dismissals of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available

Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 999/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 250

234A of the I T Act, even though appellant was not liable to file the return of income being not taxable and to pay advance tax under the provision of section 208 of the IT Act and interest u/s 234A & B ought to have been deleted. 3 6] The Appellate

Ksb Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 1028/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistri a/w. Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das - CIT DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

statistical purpose. 13. Ground no. 9 to 11 pertain to interest levied for default in furnishing return of income, default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of advance tax. The assessee contends that the return of income has been filed on time and there has been no delay

M/S. A & A Accessories, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2614/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the additions and disallowances as there is no default of advance tax. In any case, the interest charged u/s 234B is also excessive. 18. That without prejudice to each of the above mentioned grounds of appeal

Gurmelo Devi, Jagadhari vs. Income Tax Officer, Yumnanagar

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

ITA 1170/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined by the AO. Despite deficiency notices issued in January 2024, no rectification or exemption request was filed by the assessee, leading to dismissal ... compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It was noted that the assessee had neither filed her return nor paid the advance tax as determined by the AO. Despite deficiency notices issued in January 2024, no rectification or exemption request was filed by the assessee, leading to dismissal

Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

Wealth Management Business on a going concern basis and shall mean and include without limitation: (ix) all benefit/obligations related to tax i.e., Advance Tax, Tax deducted at source, Tax credits (including but not limited to credits in respect of income tax, minimum alternate tax, sales tax, value added tax, turnover

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 857/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 264

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