← 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

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

appeal filed by the assessee, in limine, on the basis that the assessee has failed to make the payment of the amount of advance tax which was due on its income, and thus as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act the appeal is not maintainable ... 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

Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2674/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2674/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Pravin Sakharam Vs Ito, Ward-5, Gulambe, Panvel Shubham Raje Enterprises House No. 70 A, At Bhagad, Post Vile Tal Mangaon, Dist Raigad 402308, Maharashtra Pan-Aslpg2336A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)

admitting the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him in order to get his appeal admitted. 4. We observe that the assessee is an individual and had not filed return ... there is no calculation available on record nor mentioned by ld. CIT(A) to come to conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay advance tax for the year under consideration. 3 5. Further, taking into consideration that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before

Kanhaiya Lal Bansal, Agra vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 191/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.191/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bansal Acit Circle 1(1)(1) 3/28A, Khandari, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrpb-3050-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sushil Maheshwari (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Maheshwari (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

transpired that the assessee deposited advance income tax of Rs.10 Lacs and Rs.17 Lacs on 18-11-2016 & 22-11-2016 respectively. Similar advance tax of Rs.8.50 Lacs was deposited for his partnership firm M/s Sathiya Bhawan Publications. The aggregate payment of Rs.35.50 Lacs so deposited in cash was stated ... confirmed the impugned addition which is in further appeal before us. 3. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the source of advances taxes so paid by the assessee was duly explained by the assessee before lower authorities. The assessee has withdrawn the impugned sums from his partnership firm which

Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1523/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1523/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta 301, Swadeshi Apartment, D-37-38 Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur बनाम The ITO Ward - 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM 0118 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Cho

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 249

offered ‘no’ comment at S. No. 9 of Form No. 35, it means that she has failed to make payment of amount equal to advance tax whereas ‘no’ mentioned in this column refers to ‘NA’ inasmuch as assessee has filed the original return of income on 25-07-2013 which ... appellant has offered ‘No’ comments at Sl. No. 9 of 35 and the appellant failed to make 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

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation), Ward, Coimbatore vs. Gurusamy Sivasankar, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1548/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1548/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Gurusamy Sivasankar, (International Taxation Ward), Vs. 67, Karukkampalayam, Coimbatore. Unjalur Post, Kolathupalayam, Erode-638 152. [Pan: Cmops 4106F]

For Appellant: Shri J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90Section 92

assessee has claimed relief of Rs. 47,08,992/- u/s. 90/90A of the Act under DTAA between India and Indonesia in respect of advance tax paid in Indonesia. The A.O in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) has accepted the return. However, the A.O has rectified the above order

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Infosys Employee Benefits Trust, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2214/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B R, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 244A

issued an intimation u/s. 143(1) and allowed the exemption claimed u/s. 10(23AAA). In the said intimation, the CPC had refunded the advance tax and the interest and the CPC had not taken into the credit the TDS amount even though the said TDS was reflected in form 26AS

Abdul Majid Ward No 6 Mohalla Radio Statsion Haveli Poonch, Poonch vs. Romesh Kumar Sharma Income Tax Officer Jammu, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 374/ASR/2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2025

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahayi.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

NFAC, passed u/s 250 of the Act 1961 dated 14.09.2023 (refusing to admit the appeal for adjudication, for non-payment of advance tax), which has emanated from the order of the AO u/s 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2019 passed by ITO Ward 2(3), Jammu. I.T.A. No.374/Asr/2023 2 Assessment ... liable to be cancelled. 6. That the C1T(A) has grossly erred in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the assessee has not paid advance tax and as such the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 7. That the authorities below- did not appreciate that the assessee was running

Late Yogendra Ray Through Lr Pavan Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Vaishali, Vaishali

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

ITA 251/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 250

case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the appellant did not make mandatory payment of amount equal to amount of advance tax and as such the appeal was not eligible for admission. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

New World Fund, Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetamkumar Turerao, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 209Section 209(1)(a)Section 234CSection 250Section 74

taking cognizance of the law that interest under section 234C of the Act was leviable only if there was a shortfall in payment of advance tax. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the law that Interest under section 234C of the Act is computed ... returned income. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that there was no shortfall in payment of advance tax instalments computed on the basis of returned income. 1.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the Appellant

Arvind Pratap Singh, Fatehgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

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

ITA 400/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Arvind Pratap Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/65, Bazariya Aliganj, Ward-4(2)(1), Fatehgarh, Up Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bnlps7513K Assessee By : Shri C. S. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(b)

assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned NFAC. The Learned NFAC observed that assessee had not paid the advance tax and thereby violated the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Learned NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un- admitted. Aggrieved, the assessee ... admission of any income by the assessee in the entire proceedings for the year under consideration. While this is so, there cannot be any advance tax liability that could be fastened on the assessee. Once there is no question of payment of advance tax, the provisions of section

Vinay Kumar Jha, Madhubani vs. PCIT-2, Patna

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

ITA 306/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the solitary ground of non-payment of advance tax on the amount of income determined by the learned assessing officer in an ex parte order of assessment and had quantified the tax liability ... made to the best of judgement of the learned assessing officer ex parte under Section 144 of the Act and that liability to pay advance tax could not be saddled on the basis of an ex parte order of assessment. 6. For that the learned assessing officer has erred

Shree Gajanan Gas Agency, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Beed

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

ITA 2012/PUN/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pushpadant Vinod SahujiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

appeal solely on the ground of not complying to the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act which provides for payment of advance tax on the total income if no return of income has been filed. 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee ... observation of the Ld. CIT(A) about the assessee having earned income in the preceding years which is liable for payment of advance tax. Therefore, after considering the submissions made by the assessee and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice

Manan Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle- 29, Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessees in ITA Nos 1783/DEL/2012,

ITA 2617/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

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. 10. That the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer and order ... assessee appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of advance tax and the interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that the impugned Assessment

Manoj Singh Gurjar, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2) Gwalior, Gwalior

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

ITA 322/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

NFAC. The ld NFAC applied the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by stating that assessee had not paid the advance tax liability and accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. - 4. We find that the assessee had neither ... admission of any income by the assessee in the entire proceedings for the year under consideration. While this is so, there cannot be any advance tax liability that could be fastened on the assessee. Once there is no question of payment of advance tax, the provisions of section

Kashtakar Cold Storage Private Limited, Farrukhabad vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

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

ITA 162/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manoj Singh Gurjar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 214, Gokul Vihar, Near Ward-2(2), Aastha Nagar Gate Behind In Front Gwalior Of Deen Dayal Nagar Gate, Bahadurpur, Bo Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bdfpg6465G Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

NFAC. The ld NFAC applied the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by stating that assessee had not paid the advance tax liability and accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We find that the assessee had neither ... admission of any income by the assessee in the entire proceedings for the year under consideration. While this is so, there cannot be any advance tax liability that could be fastened on the assessee. Once there is no question of payment of advance tax, the provisions of section