“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

Rajshree Singh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Explanation 4 to the said section that penalty is leviable on the amount of tax assessed as reduced by the prepaid taxes i.e. advance tax, TDS and Self Assessment tax already paid before the issue of notice under section 148. It is prayed that, penalty ... applies, the amount of tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.” 10. Thus

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1369/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1369/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commissioner Of Income Tax The Thanthi Trust, V. (Exemptions), No. 86, Evk Sampath Road, Chennai – 600 034. Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaatt-0038-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri.Mudit Bohara, Advocate & Shri. K.R. Adivarahan, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate for Shri.Mudit Bohara, Advocate and Shri. K.RFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

M/s.Metronation Chennai Television Pvt Ltd Rs.19,75,00,000/- 2. Corpus donation made to M/s Aditnar Educational Institution Rs.19,35,00,000/- and 3. Advance tax payment as application of income Rs.40,83,40,689/- 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) had erred in not following the order passed ... concern where one of the trustee has substantial interest, - giving corpus donation to Aditnar Educational Institution and :-4-: ITA. No:1369/Chny/2024 - payment of advance tax, has not been examined properly and hence the said order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued show cause notice

DCIT, Cir-3(2), Gangtok, Aayakar Bhawan Bhanupath Road Near White Hall Gangtok vs. Heinz India Private Limited, Sikkim

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1137/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 80I

lapse and lack of fresh material. While passing the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of advance tax payment made by the assessee and dividend distribution payment reflected in Form 26AS. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the revenue filed an appeal

Ramakrishnaiah Gowaramma, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumakuru

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

ITA 1936/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 148Section 207Section 249

admit the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee was under the obligation to make the payment of advance tax before filing the appeal as per the provisions of sec. 249(iv)(b) of the Act. With respect to the finding of the ld. CIT(A), we note ... that the assessee being a senior citizen and having no business income gets immunity from the payment of advance tax as provided u/s 207 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non maintainable

S A S Traders, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1576/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 69A

assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee since the assessee did not comply payment of advance tax. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the case was reopened after issuing notice u/s. 148. Various opportunities were granted to the assessee, but the assessee

Satish Ramanbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 672/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 249(4)Section 250Section 271Section 48

which led to passing of an ex-prate order. The ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the appeal of the assessee as due advance tax has not been paid. 4. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an illiterate and was not well

Kushal Narayan Patel, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4910/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kushal Narayan Patel, Ito Ward-26(2)(1), A/102, Sagar Garden, Chs Ltd. Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Lbs Marg, Mulund West, S.O. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Atdpp 3478 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 156Section 220Section 234BSection 234C

income and requested vide letter dated 10/04/2015 and 10/02/2016 for adding the said sum to the total income and adjustment of cash seized against advanced tax liability. Accordingly, total income was computed at ₹50,95,360/- in the assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act on 30/12/2016 ... Officer adjusted the cash seized against the tax liability only on 21/03/2018 3. In view of non-adjustment of the cash seized against the advance tax or self-assessment tax liability while passing the assessment order under section 153A of the Act and further charging of interest under section

M/S Amarjit & Sons, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

that the applicant shall pay the taxes on the amount offered during survey at the normal rate of taxes, for which, the payment of advance tax was made within the stipulated time. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal

Oasis Landmarks LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

ITA 580/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 140ASection 140A(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

under Section 234B of the Act. We note that Section 234B of the Act providing for levy of interest for default/delay in payment of advance tax was introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment Act), 1987 with effect from 01/04/1989. For proper implementation of the new scheme of assessment introduced ... assessee to pay, before furnishing the return, tax together with interest for delay in furnishing the return or any default/delay in payment of the advance tax. Further, an `Explanation' was also inserted in the said Section 140A(1) to clarify that where the assessee pays only part of the amount

Trisigma Apex Services LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3148/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2021-22 Trisigma Apex Services Llp, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49(1), 01-0103, C-Block, Community New Delhi Centre, Imperial Tower, Civic Centre, Naraina Industrial Estate, New Delhi South West, New Delhi – 28 (Pan: Aahft4549G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 234iSection 250

income at Rs. 14,95,45,260/- and tax and interest liability payable thereon Rs. 430,84,414/- which was discharged by way of advance tax of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, TDS of Rs. 39,81,557/-, TCS of Rs. 41,775/- and self assessment tax

Shampa Devprasad Sengupta, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 145/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

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

Section 249(4)(b)

appellant is not maintainable. He ought to have seen that according to the appellant no tax is payable by him and that, therefore, no advance tax liability arises and in view of the same, the provisions contained in Sec. 249(4)(b) have no application. 3. The learned Commissioner

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

while determining demand payable by the Appellant without appreciating that since the Appellant could not be held liable for the payment of advance tax for the amount under reference, no interest u/s 234B and 234C could be charged particularly for the reason that special rate of tax has been provided

Khammam Finance Corporation, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

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

ITA 855/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

requirement contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the Act would stand triggered only where any obligation was cast upon the assessee to pay “advance tax” and since no such obligation is there on the assessee in this case, invoking the provisions under section ... learned CIT(A), based on the material available before him, entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the appeal without payment of the advance tax, and issued a notice to the effect, assessee failed to respond to the notice and explain to the learned

Anmol Developers, Ahmedabad vs. Addl/Jt/Dy./ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 345/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271FSection 69

case of the assessee is that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that assessee failed to pay the advance tax, therefore, as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal is not maintainable. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, the assessee ... appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, if no return of income has been filed. 3.2 In the present case, the appellant did not file return of income. As per the assessment order

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3577/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 144Section 147Section 2(24)Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 28Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

claim of deduction u/s 80P/2)(a)(i) of the Act is nil and therefore, the Appellant Society was not required to make payment of advance tax at the time of filing of appeal. Further, the provision of section 234B(1) r.w.s 208 of the Act were not applicable to this ... Assessment Year as the Appellant Society was not required to pay advance tax u/s 208 of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre is erred in observing that the Appellant

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

book value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any am of paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the become-tax Act and shown in the balance-sheet as asset ... apart towards depreciation. (iv) any amount representing provision for 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

The Kalupur Commercial Co.-Operative Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

interest amounting to ₹17,33,02,399/-. The tax payments included ₹36,26,296/- as TDS, a sum of ₹16,00,00,000/- as advance tax, and a sum of ₹1,90,00,000/- as self-assessment tax, which was paid on 30th July 2011. The return was processed under ... assessee with the following observations: “On perusal of records it shows that, Appellant has paid following taxes: TDS Rs. 36,26,296/- Advance tax Rs. 16,00,00,000/- Se/f assessments tax Rs. 1,90,00,000/- dated (30.07.2011) Total Rs. 18,26,26,296/- As submitted by the Appellant

Ramadevi Nelaturi, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddutur

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

ITA 1031/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1031/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Ramadevi Nelaturi Vs. Income Tax Officer Cuddapah Ward -1 Pan: Avipn5487D Proddutur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Aravindakshan, DR

Section 148Section 209Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69C

From the material available on record, it would be clear that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but for the addition made by the Assessing Officer. There was no material ... available on record to show that there is a liability to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of Page 2 of 3 ITA No 1031 of 2024 Ramadevi Nelaturi the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) ought not to have invoked the provisions

Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68