← 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

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

case of CIT Vs. Prem Lata Jalani [2003]264 ITR 744 (Rajasthan HC) wherein it has been held that the ability to pay advance tax in such peculiar cases will only arise after the transaction has taken place. It was further submitted that the assessee has specifically taken this ground ... proviso to section 234C which specifically envisages the matter relating to estimation of income in the nature of capital gains and payment of advance tax in relation thereto. Considering the same, the matter is remitted to the file of the AO to recompute the interest u/s 234C taking into consideration

Chandra Bhushan Roy, Madhepura vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 497/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. No. 497/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Chandra Bhushan Roy,………..………..……..Appellant Bihari Nagar, Ward No. 18, Madhepura-852113, Bihar [Pan:Ayhpr0926R] -Vs.- Nfac, Delhi,……………………………………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Kr. Agrawal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manab Adak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Income Tax Act saying that the assessee failed to file ITR as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it and simply confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer without giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee ... assessee being not admitted as the assessee did not file ITR as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. Even during the course of assessment proceedings, inspite of sufficient opportunities given, the assessee did not furnish details in support

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8364/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

reiterated both jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of reopening and merits of additions, and also raised grounds relating to non- grant of credit for advance tax, TDS, and levy of interest. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that: - the reopening was based on tangible ... purchase was a bogus purchase. 11. Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 4,00,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1). 12. Both the lower authorities erred

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8363/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

reiterated both jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of reopening and merits of additions, and also raised grounds relating to non- grant of credit for advance tax, TDS, and levy of interest. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that: - the reopening was based on tangible ... purchase was a bogus purchase. 11. Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 4,00,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1). 12. Both the lower authorities erred

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8362/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

reiterated both jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of reopening and merits of additions, and also raised grounds relating to non- grant of credit for advance tax, TDS, and levy of interest. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that: - the reopening was based on tangible ... purchase was a bogus purchase. 11. Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 4,00,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1). 12. Both the lower authorities erred

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8361/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

reiterated both jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of reopening and merits of additions, and also raised grounds relating to non- grant of credit for advance tax, TDS, and levy of interest. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that: - the reopening was based on tangible ... purchase was a bogus purchase. 11. Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 4,00,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1). 12. Both the lower authorities erred

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

falls within the limits of the non-taxable parameters, as prescribed by the Government and therefore, the Assessee was not required to pay any advance tax. 6. Thus, considering the above peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are inclined to remand the matter to the file

Sporta Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3500/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am M/S. Sporta Technologies Private Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Appeals) – 1 Jaipur, Unit 1201, 1202, A-Wing, Dcit 3(1)(1), Vs. 12Th Floor One Bkc, Plot No.66, Aayakar Bhawan, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagca4854K (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

Processing Centre ('CPC') erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act as the M/s. Sporta Technologies Private Limited Appellant had paid the advance tax for the third quarter on a timely basis and funds have been debited from the bank account on 15 December ... vide intimation dated 28.01.2025, interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,23,80,937/- on account of delay in payment of advance tax for the third quarter of the A.Y. 2024-25 was levied. 2 M/s. Sporta Technologies Private Limited 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3244/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held that: Haryana State Coop. Labour & Construction Federation Ltd. “it is mentioned that the aforesaid decision nowhere mentions that if the payee pays the advance tax, then no interest shall be charged u/s 201(1A). We are of the view that this position will have to be seen with reference ... date of default in case of the payer and date of advance tax paid by the payee. Thus, there could be a situation where the two dates coincide. In such a case, no interest will be chargeable as the tax has been paid by way of advance tax

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held that: Haryana State Coop. Labour & Construction Federation Ltd. “it is mentioned that the aforesaid decision nowhere mentions that if the payee pays the advance tax, then no interest shall be charged u/s 201(1A). We are of the view that this position will have to be seen with reference ... date of default in case of the payer and date of advance tax paid by the payee. Thus, there could be a situation where the two dates coincide. In such a case, no interest will be chargeable as the tax has been paid by way of advance tax

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3242/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held that: Haryana State Coop. Labour & Construction Federation Ltd. “it is mentioned that the aforesaid decision nowhere mentions that if the payee pays the advance tax, then no interest shall be charged u/s 201(1A). We are of the view that this position will have to be seen with reference ... date of default in case of the payer and date of advance tax paid by the payee. Thus, there could be a situation where the two dates coincide. In such a case, no interest will be chargeable as the tax has been paid by way of advance tax

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

interest under section 244A by the Jurisdictional assessing officer at the time of issuing refund for AY 2020-21. Short grant of credit of advance tax of Rs. 12,52,377 8. The Ld. AO erred in restricting the credit of advance tax ... against Rs. 60,41,27,607 claimed by the Appellant in the return of income, thereby short grant of advance tax credit by Rs. 12,52,377. Erroneous levy of interest 9. The Ld. AO has erred in levying total interest of Rs. 27,33,788 without providing any basis

Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2221/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2017-18

Section 139Section 153CSection 154Section 234A

assessment is made, on the amount of the tax on the total income determined under regular assessment, as reduced by the amount of,— (i) advance tax, if any, paid; (ii) any tax deducted or collected at source; (iia) any relief of tax allowed under section 89; (iii) any relief

Roshan Ali, Proprietor M/S Sagar Dairy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(5), Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/DDN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Roshan Ali, Proprietor Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sagar Dairy, Ward-1(3)(5), Dargah Pahari Gate Near Roorkee Pani Ki Tanki, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Pan :Bsepa8697Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)

Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has refused to admit the assessee’s appeal under section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax than having adjudicated on merits under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion ... make it clear that there is not even an indication in the lower appellate discussion that the assessee had ever been intimated about the advance tax payment liability all along. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to restore this assessee’s instant appeal back

Charchit Garg, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80J

80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹4,58,090/-. The tax liability of ₹12,55,741/- was duly discharged through TDS, advance tax and self- assessment tax. 4. The return of income was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.07.2024. While

Abhishek Jayketu Joshi, Mumbai vs. Ac Cir-42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5775/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarabhishek Jayketu Joshi Ac Cir-42(2)(1), C-73, Venus Society, R. G. Kautilya Bhavan, Thadani Marg, Worli Sea Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Face, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Ackpj8583H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. M. Golvala, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assumption of jurisdiction under section 147, the disallowance of deduction under section 80GGC, denial of cross-examination, and non-grant of credit for TDS, advance tax, and TCS. The assessee filed written submissions reiterating that the statutory conditions of section 80GGC were 5 Abhishek Jayketu Joshi duly fulfilled, that ... inspite of CPC granting the said credit in the intimation under section 143(1). 10. The AO erred in not granting credit for advance tax paid of Rs.15000/- although the same was granted in intimation under section 143(1). 11. The AO erred in not granting credit

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

noted that in Woolcomber's cose (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 appellant and in such a case it should be presumed that