“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

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

Rs.41,71,65,843/- Total Rs.520,91,90,295/- Rs.208,82,98,161/- On the above sale amount the respective firm will be paid advance tax before 15/03/2019. W22 12/1/19. W2 Authorized Officer ASHOK B. MURAI) at Directors Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Nashik. Deponent Sol 12.01.19 During the course

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1007/PUN/2024[AY 2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

J K Group Construction, Dombivli vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

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

ITA 10/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Group Construction as infructuous, because the assessee did not file return of income as well as failed to paid any advance tax. 3. He further submitted that even before the Ld.AO assessee could not represent its case. It is submitted that assessee failed inadvertently to check the e-mails during

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

value of the assets in the balance sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance sheet ... apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Goel Eisha Capitals, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Rs.520,91,90,295/- Rs.208,82,98,161/- Rs.41,71,65,843/- On the above sale amount the respective firm will be paid advance tax before 15/03/2019, w2f2. 12/1/19. wa CHOK B. MURAI) ViRis Authorized Officer Kinalt 12-01-19 Deponent During the course of post-search/survey investigation

Kaveri Cotex Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jamnagar, Jamngar

ITA 338/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.338/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Kaveri Cotex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-3, Jamnagar At. Moti Banugar, Nr. Rampar Aaykar Bhawan, P N Marg, Crossing, Opp. Sarvoday Hotel, Manek Chowk, Jamnagar- Jamnagar Highway, 361006 Jamnagar-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck8772G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 04 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

hock addition are wrong assessee maintain books of accounts and are audited by CA. The assessee has sufficient fund in his business to advance Tax free loan. The Ld. AR has relied on order of the hon’ble Gujrat High Court and order of Ld. ITAT Surat

Jinto Chettiyakunnel Thomas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2420/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Kirath Singh, Advocate

been has been deposited. As per the assessee, only income is salary of Rs.3,33,000/- and therefore there is no admitted tax and advance tax is not payable. After hearing both the parties, Stay Petition was dismissed and assessee's appeal is restored back to CIT(A), where assessee

Rakeshkumar K. Jain, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 4, Navsari

ITA 1332/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rakesh K. Jain, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 4, Navsari

ITA 1331/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

supposed to file return of income. At present appellant has to just tell whether he paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him and if he had not made such payment whether he wants exemption from operation of provisions of section ... appellant has failed to do so. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income. 6. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

Utility Supply Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

Amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at sources 2,19,72,240/- 20,51,300/- Amount of tax paid as advance tax 45,00,000/- 0 Any amount shown as assets including the unamortized amount of deferred expenditure which does not represent the value of any asset

Charanjit Singh Son of Sh. Lakhmir Singh, H.No. 23, Gujjarwal Bet, P.O. Chaunta, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer III(2), Jao, the Income Tax Officer-3(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1005/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

reply from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not pay advance tax. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It is seen that the assessee is a non-filer and therefore, the question of payment ... advance tax would not arise. Nevertheless, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the impugned order

Vijay Vyankatrao Mane, Sadashiv Peath vs. Additional Commissioner, Addl/JCIT(A)- Chandigarh

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

ITA 1845/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

adjustment of the tax and interest, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section 91, any rebate allowable under

Shri Vijay Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

The appeals are allowed

ITA 928/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Ccountant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Zscaler Inc., Vs Dcit, 120, Holger Way San Jose, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), California, Usa, Delhi. Usa 95134. Pan: Aaacz4350P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate; Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate; Ms Ankita Prakash, Advocate; & Shri Govind Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.10.2023 & 22.01.2025 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

tax in India as per the DTAA between India and USA, thus claiming refund of Rs.12,01,53,910/- on account of TDS and Advance Tax. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.06.2022 followed

Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Pune vs. ITO, Ward13(1), Pune

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

ITA 224/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

returned by him; or Where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this ... order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax, since on his salary income TDS was already deducted which was appearing in Form 26AS, secondly no capital gain was arising on sale of immovable

M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2023-24

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil K.P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sridhar E., D.R

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 244ASection 250

115BAA of the Act amounting to Rs.92,43,53,243/- and the total tax paid by the company in the form of advance tax, TDS and TCS amounting to Rs.101,02,90,762/- and accordingly the assessee company claimed a refund of Rs.8,59,37,520/- along with interest

Mahalaxmi Automobiles, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 6743/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemahalaxmi Automobiles Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Survey No.13, 14./3, Next 70 Thane, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road Hotel Sagar, Bhivandi Road, Vasai- 401202 No.16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Pan : Abdfm6069L Thane (West)- 400 604 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit TapadiaFor Respondent: Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

petition on the technical ground of non compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act as the assessee has failed to pay the advance-tax before filing of appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) conceded that the assessee is a non filer, so section ... appeal petition, in serial No.9 has been specifically mentioned that where no return has been filed, the assessee should pay the equal amount of advance-tax for pursuing the appeal petition. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) on page 4 is reproduced as below:- “Decision- 3.1 I have examined