“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

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

income as per the return i.e. at Rs.1,47,07,819/- for the purposes of computation. The said profit was before deducting provision for advance tax at Rs.30,00,000/-. It is true that they had made a provision for income tax at Rs.30,00,000/- in the audited profit ... been offered in the return. Thus, the taxable income of the bank was Rs.1,47,07,819/- and 4 this included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating the same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

income as per the return i.e. at Rs.1,47,07,819/- for the purposes of computation. The said profit was before deducting provision for advance tax at Rs.30,00,000/-. It is true that they had made a provision for income tax at Rs.30,00,000/- in the audited profit ... taxable income of the bank was Rs.1,47,07,819/- and 4 ITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024 ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 this included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating the same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition

General Organization for Social Insurance, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation) Circle 2(3)(2) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1408/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234CSection 270ASection 274

Arabia, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(6) of the India- Saudi Arabia DTAA. 2. Re.: Erred in granting short credit of advance tax paid amounting to Rs.6,20,21,241/-: 2. 1. The learned ACIT has erred in granting the Appellant short credit for advance tax paid ... Rs.6,20,21,241/-. 2. 2. The Appellant submits that the learned ACIT be directed to grant full credit for the advance tax paid and to re-compute its tax liability accordingly. 3. Re: Erroneous levy of interest u/s.234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 3. 1. The learned ACIT

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

applying the provisions of sec. 249(4)(b) of the Act alleging that the assessee had not paid amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 ITA.No.284/PUN./2025 (Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar) 5. Learned counsel ... taxable limit, and even preceding years also the income is below the taxable limit and there is no liability on the assessee to pay advance tax. He also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that sec.249(4)(b) is applicable, but the same is applicable when

Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Yanam vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 189/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.189/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Yanam. Ward-1, Pan: Abhpy4417B Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 28

appellant has offered ‘not applicable’ comments at Sl. No.9 of Form-35 and the appellant faield 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 not correct ... appellant has not made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income. The appellant has also not requested for exemption from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act. 6. Since the appellant

Aloor Thomas Joy, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Kochi

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

ITA 1106/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

case the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that the assessee failed to deposit the advance tax payable by him before filing of the return of income in terms of the provisions of section ... been charged under the Income-tax Act has been computed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax. 4. The learned DR tried to justify the action of the ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur

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

ITA 1105/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)

Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

applies, the amount of tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148." 10. Thus ... evaded shall be determined by taking into consideration the amount of tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice u/s 148. The case of the assessee

Chandra Sekhar Pendurthi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 560/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.560/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Chandra Sekhar Pendurthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(3) Pan:Amopp4019L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T Rama Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri T Rama Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the return of income filed by the assessee, advance tax as reflected in Form 26AS as well as the cash seized during the search & seizure operation to be adjusted against the tax liability and then

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 365/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

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

Appellate Authority erred in invoking Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order ... ld.CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed appeal as not admitted u/s.249(4)(b) stating that the assessee had not made the payment of applicable advance tax. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has also stated that the assessee has not made any application as per the proviso to section

Kandasamy Govindaraj, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 364/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

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

Sangeeta Kathuria, Gurgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5888/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sangeet Kathuria, Vs. Ito, D-49, 2Nd Floor, Suncity Ward-49(1), Sector-54, Chakarpur Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bjnpk2905B

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

Centre (NFAC) observed that the assessee at Sl No. 9 of Form 35 in response to the query as to whether he had paid advance tax, had replied as “not applicable” and the ld NFAC noted that where no return of income was filed by the assessee, the assessee should ... have at least deposited the entire taxes in the form of advance tax before the end of the previous year, which alone would Sangeet Kathuria entitle the assessee to prefer any appeal before the ld NFAC. Accordingly, the ld NFAC dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 5. The assessee always

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 132/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.10.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 207Section 207(2)Section 234BSection 234ESection 243BSection 37Section 37(1)

which are subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). It is submitted that since senior citizens are exempt from payment of advance tax, therefore no liability to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 207(2) of the Act. On due consideration of the above submissions ... charged interest u/s. 234B of the Act in the original assessment. There is no dispute that the appellant is liable to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 207 of the Act on the assessed income. The disparity between the returned income and assessed income had arisen

Ruhi Rana, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panchkula

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 352/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 352/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ruhi Rana, The Ito, बनाम House No.858, Sector 4, Ward -3, Panchkula Panchkula Vs. C/O Vineet Gandhi & Vineet Thakral, Advocates, # 1491, Sector 4, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdrpr9229N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vineet Thakral, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., Cit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add., CIT Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 270A

arrived at the total income of Rs. 54,77,343/- and computed the tax payable at Rs. 25,56,691/- which included the advance tax payable by the appellant. On or before 352-Chd-2024 Ruhi Rana, Panchkula 4 filing the present appeal, the appellant has failed to make ... required payment of the amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. Further, the appellant neither provided any satisfactory clarification/ explanation in response to the deficiency letter issued by this office nor did he offer any reason, leave alone any good and sufficient reasons

Abdulrehman Abdulhay Bhanapatel, Surat vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 20/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.20/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybridhearing) Abdulrehman Abdulhay Bhanapatel, Vs. The Ito, 18, Tekari Street, Eklera Bhanodra, Ward-2(3)(1), Choryasi, Surat - 394230 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Blnpb7848C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50C

that 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. He verified Form 35 and found that the appellant has not made payment ... amount equal to the advance tax, which was due on his income. Since the appellant has not filed the return of income as well as not paid the said amount of advance tax, which was payable by him, the appeal filed by the assessee was not admitted. 5. Aggrieved

Aditya Cement, Behror vs. ITO, Behror

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

ITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 72(1)

During survey, on account of certain discrepancies found in stock, cash, etc. the assessee surrendered an income of Rs.52,86,885/-. The assessee paid advance tax on the surrendered income and filed its ITR showing the amount surrendered as “Income from other sources”.It then went on to claim

Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 4201/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify

DCIT, Rishikesh vs. M/S Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 2078/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Narasimha Reddy Duthala, Hyderabad

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

Rs.39.05 Crore) and has paid the due taxes thereon (including Rs.11.76 Crore by way of Self- Assessment Tax and Rs.1 Crore by way of Advance Tax). There is no dispute on these facts relevant and material to the impugned transaction. 6.8 AO has, however, denied the claim of exemption under

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Bidadi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Or the DCIT, Circle - 7(1)(1), Koramangala

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

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

Disallowance of Exempt Income - If any income claimed as exempt does not meet the required conditions. 7. Mismatch in Tax Payments - Adjustments for advance tax, TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section