“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

Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalna vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1670/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1670/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kasturi 47, Azad Maidan, Near Saibaba Temple, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant-Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

/NFAC dismissed the appeal without admitting the same on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the conditions of payment of advance tax as specified u/s 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. 3 It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal ... /NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable

Kavita Srichand Bajaj, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4684/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 156Section 250

tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section

Akash Nareshbhai Panchal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1210/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Adjournment Application Filed

Section 249(4)(b)Section 68Section 69A

erred in dismissing the appeal, invoking provisions of sec. 249(4)(b) holding that appellant has failed to make payment of amount equal to advance tax, without appreciating the facts of the case properly and judiciously. It is submitted that the provisions of sec. 249(4)(b) are not applicable

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta

Section 153(5)Section 244A

TAXES PAYMENT DETAILS TAXES PAYMENT DETAILS 50. TDS/TCS TDS/TCS 57,00,171 57,00,171 51. ADVANCE TAX ADVANCE TAX 0 52. SELF ASSESSMENT TAX SELF ASSESSMENT TAX 11,06,314 11,06,314 53. REGULAR ASSESSMENT TAX REGULAR ASSESSMENT TAX

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta

Section 153(5)Section 244A

Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta

Section 153(5)Section 244A

Gurujala Babu Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1379/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1379/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Gurujala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Bsmpr6925C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, DR

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 50C

that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, on the ground that, the assessee has not paid the advance tax while invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has further submitted that, the assessee ... lower rate than the market value. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that, dismissing the appeal, in limine for want of payment of advance tax by the learned CIT (A) without deciding the issue on merits is not justified. He has thus, prayed that, the matter may be remanded

Arulmigu Siddhi Vinayagar Temple Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2396/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2396 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Siddhi Vinayagar Temple Non-Corp. Ward-7(1), Trust, Chennai J.Prabhakar, B.Com., F.C.A Chartered Accountant, Residency Apartments, New No.245, Old No.108, T.T.K Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aahta6982E]

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 143(1)Section 164Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

rate of 30% plus applicable CESS at 4% besides alleged Page - 2 - of 5 :- 3 -: interest for delayed payment and deferment of advance tax as well as delayed filing of return of income aggregating to Rs.61,010/-. It was argued that aggrieved by the aforesaid action, an appeal was filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani

Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

taxes and duties payable by SUSSEGADO, accruing and relating to the operations of the Demerged Undertaking from the Appointed Date onwards, including all advance tax payments, tax deducted at source, any refund and claims shall, for all purposes, be treated as advance tax payments, tax deducted at source or refunds ... Transferee Company is also expressly permitted to revise their Income Tax returns, and other returns filed under the Tax Laws and to claim refunds, advance tax and withholding tax credits, etc. as applicable pursuant to the provisions of this Scheme.” In the light of above facts, Ld. AR has requested

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani

Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

Growmore Research and Assets Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 453/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 512/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

imposed and I promise to pay the due taxes on the surrendered income on or before 15th March 2018 by paying advance tax for the AY 2018-19 and self assessment tax for the AY 2017-18 by filing the revised return of income.” 29. Accordingly, in the totality

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 511/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 510/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

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 ... towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for (iv) taxation, other than 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, to the extent of the excess over

Shri. Javeed Ahmad Lone, Anantnagh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

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

ITA 259/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Upender Bhat, C.A

Section 133HSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

section 249(4) Clause (b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and has refused to admit the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, in this case where no return of income has been filed. 4. The primary facts are that the assessee has sold immovable property (land ... that the ld. CIT(A) has issued a deficiency letter on 05.01.2024 and again on 12.01.2024 calling for an explanation for non- payment of advance tax which was the requirement as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, 1961 in cases where no return is filed

Sh. Mohit Mittal Prop. Mittal Enterprises, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 Ludhiana, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 69A

piece with the department. I surrender a sum of Rs. 52,01,761/- subject to penal action and I will deposit tax and advanced tax on the amount of Rs.52,01,761/-. Further, stock is a part of my business and may kindly be treated as business income. Q.18 ... year 2020-21 as additional business income over and above my regular profits subject to no penal action. I undertake to pay the due advance tax on the additional income offered on or before 31.03.2020. The proceedings u/s 133A have been carried in very peaceful and cordial atmosphere

Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta"s"cal purpose

ITA 277/HYD/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 277/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vijay Kumar Reddy Dcit, Challa, Vs. Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [Pan : Abvpc7798M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- in terms of Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) Circular No. 20/2017, dated 12/06/2017 as a part of advance tax only and ul"mately the request of the assessee for rec"fica"on of the processing of return of income under ... assessee as to prosecu"ng the claim to consider the cash of Rs. 45,00,000/- seized on 4/12/2018 as a part of advance tax in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 20/2017 (supra) remains un-contradicted and ul"mately such ma"er was disposed of by order dated 15/11/2022

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

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

Rudra Buildwell Project P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Spearsearch Solutions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-4 & 5, Street No. 3, Near Ward-77(3), Nathu Sweets, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pan: Abofs7069J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. P.D. Mittal, Ca Department By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

perusal of the assessment order that vide paras 9 the Assessing Officer had noted the information supplied by the assessee in respect of the advance tax paid by the deductee M/s PGCIL and TDS amount adjusted against the tax payable for the respective assessment years under appeal. Following the ratio