← 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

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

Rallis India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

granting credit for tax deducted at source to the tune of Rs.67,900/-. 19. The Assessing Officer erred in not granting credit for advance tax paid to the tune of Rs.3,77,21,258/-. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Representative for the Assessee. Ground No.9 12. Ground No.9 raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of credit of tax deducted at source and advance tax pertaining to the amalgamated companies and the Demerged Undertaking for the relevant previous year. While computing the tax liability, the Assessing Officer ... grant credit of TDS and advance tax reflected in the name of the amalgamating companies and relating to the Demerged Undertaking. The Assessee raised additional ground ITA No. 502/Mum/2024, ITA No.302/Mum/2024 ITA No.556/Mum/2024 & ITA No. 557/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 before CIT(A) for claiming credit

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Vijayawada

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

ITA 324/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Tax, R/O.Vijayawada. Central Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Adrpv4231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmadha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmadha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

tax 85[, interest and fee], 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 Part

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Shilpa Steel and Powers Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 317/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

have given our thoughtful consideration to the provisions of section 234C which provides that where in any financial year the assessee liable to pay Advance Tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or is less than the percentage prescribed in every quarter mentioned in the Clause

Dharmendrasinh Manharsinh Chudasama, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1515/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jamin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 210Section 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

requires to be dropped. 08. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B, 234C and 234D requires to be deleted. 09. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter

Vishal Kumar Bhargav, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Mohali

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

ITA 717/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.717/Chd/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Vishal Kumar Bhargav, Income Tax Officer, H. No. 681, Phase-7, Mohali Ward 6(2), Mohali 160062, Punjab "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Bmvpb2612R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R

appeal is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for non deposit of advance tax. Vishal Kumar Bhargav v. ITO 2 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to appeal opening Form

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

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

ITA 817/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

assessee, was on its behalf. The assessee tabulated the details of the income-taxes paid by these VCFs in the form of advance tax, TDS etc. aggregating to Rs.6,81,79,230/- and claimed its credit in the return of income. The AO however noted that the income returned ... find merit in the AO’s findings and observe that, it would indeed be a travesty for the VCFs to pay taxes, particularly advance tax, on the income which was exempt u/s 10(23FB), being fully aware that it was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee

Idfc Financial Holding Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Hennai

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

ITA 241/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234C

appreciating that the book profit includes Capital Gain income arose in the 4th quarter. Therefore, according to assessee, the liability to pay advance tax arise only on 31.03.2019 and the First Appellate Authority erroneously endorsed the action of CPC. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee IDFC Financial Holding ... Rs.29,51,188/-. Such a demand has been determined on account of levy of interest u/s.234C of the Act in respect of advance tax payable on transaction pertaining to capital gains on sale of investment. In this regard, the Ld.AR pointed out that the book profit

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT-Range-II, Chennai

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

ITA 1263/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

assessee, was on its behalf. The assessee tabulated the details of the income-taxes paid by these VCFs in the form of advance tax, TDS etc. aggregating to Rs.6,81,79,230/- and claimed its credit in the return of income. The AO however noted that the income returned ... find merit in the AO’s findings and observe that, it would indeed be a travesty for the VCFs to pay taxes, particularly advance tax, on the income which was exempt u/s 10(23FB), being fully aware that it was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee

Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal

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

ITA 410/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 361/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Rajwinder Singh, The Ito, Vpo Dhulkot, Ward 1 (3), Ghugrana, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cuzps4045L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. Dr & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 410/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Amarjeet Singh, The Ito, Near Firolpur Road, Ward 1, Tiwan, Kailthal Siwan Kaithal "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Graps0935M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Captioned Appeals Have Preferred By The Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 12.01.2024 & 361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 2 30.01.2024 Respectively Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

that the Assessee was having taxable income because of the bank deposit in his account and further that the Assessee had not deposited the advance tax payable by him. He, therefore, did not adjudicate the appeal on 361 & 410 -Chd-2024 Rajwinder Singh, Ludhiana & Amarjeet Singh, Kaithal 4 merits ... dismissed the appeal of the Assessee as not admissible for non deposit of advance tax. 9. After hearing the ld. DR, I am of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. The Assessee in this case, from