“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

Sbw Udyog Limited, Prayagraj vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/ALLD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Court on the payment of statutory dues. If that had been the case, then there would have been simultaneous extension for the payment of advance tax / tax deduction at source / self-assessment tax under the Income Tax Act. The ld. Sr. DR further submitted that section

Sh. Vikesh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, Ground No. 1

ITA 1417/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 44A

assessee holding that since the assessee has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal is not liable to be admitted by incorrectly interpreting the provisions of section ... view of these facts and considering the provisions as contained in section 249(4)(b) of the Act alongwith the scheme of advance tax, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal on the ground of section 249(4)(b) of the Act found to be erroneous

Radhe Lal, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 350/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Radhe Lal V. Ito (4)1 House No.13, Chunun Kheda Lucknow Awas Vikas Colony Manak Nagar, Para Lucknow Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 44ASection 80T

interest of Rs.98,304/- u/s 234B because "IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AS PER ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MANDATED TO PAY ADVANCE TAXES FOR BUSINESS INCOME U/S 44AD" 2.2 The contention of the assessee vide ground No.1 of the rectification application was found to be correct and, therefore

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

firm nor even made payments towards his share of taxes payable by the firm. The assessee also submitted that the firm paid the advance tax amounting to INR 10,26,56,016, but because there were disputes between the partners, therefore, the return of income could not be filed

Govind Patel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 277/MUM/2025[2017 - 18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Ochani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “SECTION - INVALID ORDER 1. THAT, impugned dated 28/12/2024 was issued on pretext that, advance tax was not paid by appellant for AY 2017 - 18, however there was not outstanding liability on income returned by appellant. 2. THAT, NFAC has raised no query with ... regard to impugned non-payment of advance tax and without providing opportunity of hearing has dismissed appeal of appellant. SECTION 151 - INVALID APPROVAL FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 3. THAT, AO is erred in law and on facts, in initiating reassessment proceedings vide jurisdictional notice dated 29/07/2022 issued

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 530/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 250Section 61

tax amount. 3. You contention applicable only with reference to clause (a) or clause (aa) of Sec. 244A, which specifically deals with TDS, TCS. Advance Tax or Self- Assessment Tax paid u/s 140A. 4. Proviso to Sec. 244A(1) as relied upon is not applicable to the facts ... held that the provision of section 244A(1)(a) is applicable where refund is out of any TCS u/s 206C or paid as an advance tax or treated as paid u/s 199 of the Act. Similarly, provision of section 244A(1)(aa) is applicable where refund is out of tax

Ariba Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1587/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Mr. Aliasgar Rampurawala, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

claimed as exempt does not meet the required conditions. . IT(TP)A No.1587/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 19 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Span India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 801/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

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.” 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought ... 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. REVENUE’S APPEAL 1. The CIT(A) has erred

Sachin, Hisar vs. DCIT, Central Circle -7, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2614/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Circle - 36(1), Kolkata

ITA 2192/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Him & Therefore, It Is Mentioned

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under section 234C of the Act which is not chargeable in this case as the assessee was not liable to pay any advance tax. 9. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 2.1 Before

Bao Value Fund, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/w TarangFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 68

erred in levying interest as per Section 234B of the Act of Rs. 22,82,490 for default in payment of advance tax when there was no default in payment of advance tax on the part of the appellant. The appellant prays that the levy of interest under Section 234B

Mr Harilal Santhosh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 774/Mum/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Mr. Harilal Santhosh, 47/48, Kakad Kunj, Dwarkesh Park, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. [Pan : Ajjps 0926 P] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward- 33(1)(5), Room No. 915, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By Sh. Bharat Gandhi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Sh. Anil Gupta Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 03.01.2024 For

Section 115BSection 144Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 254(1)Section 69A

perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the assessee has not filed return of income nor paid equal to the advance tax which was payable by assessee. The assessment was completed by Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144. The Id CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... relied upon by Ld.AR of the assessee. Since the assessee has not filed ROI as well as not paid an amount equal to the advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A). It may be stated that if tax is being paid

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

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

Nexion Surfaces Pvt. Ltd., Lalpar, Gungan, Rajkot vs. The ACIT Cir-1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 692/RJT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

/RIT /2024 [A Y.2023-24] Nexion Surface P. Lid. v. ACIT The learned DDIT CPC, Bengaluru has erred in not granting the credit of advance tax of Rs. 12,21,00,000, TDS of Rs. 12,47,002 and TCS of Rs. 22,263 on the ground that the advance tax ... payments are not available for the assessment year under consideration and TDS and TCS credit is not in form 26AS inasmuch as; (a) such advance tax, TDS and TCS pertain to the business undertaking of Nexion International Private Limited AAVCS2567C NIPL and are duly reflecting in PAN of NIPL

Sushma Singhal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, but only for statistical purposes

ITA 86/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

section is not applicable in the present case as the assessee is exempted for filing the income tax return and making the payment of advance tax. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits ... Assessing Officer arrived at a total income of ` 28,83,082, and computed the tax payable at ` 44,76,490, which included the advance tax payable by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) was of the view that as per the provisions of section

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 59/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

object to the action of the AO and have to submit that the AO failed to consider the fact that while estimating the Advance Tax, the assessee was unable to visualise that there would be addition in the returned income. In such a situation, no interest u/s. 234B which ... account of short payment of advance tax instalments should be levied. The action of the AO is unjustified. Furthermore, the calculation of interest levied u/s. 234A and 234B have also not been provided in the computation sheet and in such a situation, the assessee is unable to comment

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 58/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 57/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 56/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A

Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

ITA 55/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A