← 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

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

appeal is dismissed as un-admitted and infructuous for the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has not filed his return ... dismissed the appeal as unadmitted by giving the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A)-NFAC observed as under:- “4. Since the appellant

Philomena Paul Fernandesv, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre (ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 139Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in-limine for the reason that the assessee has not paid the advance tax and hence, the appeal filed by the assessee before him is not admissible as required u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ld.Counsel ... letter no. 3 Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/F/17/2023-24/1054461517(1) dated 19.07.2023 to intimate whether it has made payment of tax – which includes element of advance tax also-in compliance to notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act but the appellant made no compliance to this letter.” 4. In that

North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 249/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.249/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 12 Government Place, East Esplanade, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aadcn8006B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata….….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Company Did Not Get The Notice Served For Hearing Trom The Office Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Delhi. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi, Had Erred In Making Disallowances On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Of Rs. 14,54,713/.

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) -11, Delhi, had erred in disallowing the credit of payment of advance tax of Rs.20,00,000/ to the appellant company. 6. That the appellant craves leave to supplement, cancel or otherwise amend any of the grounds herein above ... disallowance will be attracted. Ground No.5 – Vide Ground No.5, the assessee has agitated 7. against the disallowance on account of credit of payment of advance tax of Rs.20,00,000/-. 7.1 The brief facts relevant to the issue are that there has been a demerger of the unit

Mhasimata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward1, Dhule

ITA 881/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.881/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mhasimata Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigar Sheti Sahakari S Ward-1, Dhule. Pathsanstha Limited, Nizampur Sakri, Dhule- 424305. Pan: Aaeam9576E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hemant Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal(Addl/Jcit)(A)-5, Kolkata U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 27.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned A.O Has Grossly Erred In Disallowing The Deduction Claimed U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Interest Received Of Rs. 4,12,160/ From Central Bank Of India & Dena Bank, Which Is A Attributed To The Part Of Business Income & Hence Appellant Is Eligible For The Deduction. Therefore, Finding Of The Learned A.O Be Vacated & Due Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The I T Act May Please Be Allowed. Mhasimata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Limited [A]

Section 208Section 234Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(A)Section 80P(2)(a)

charging the Interest of Rs.29,822/-, u/s.234 B of the I T Act, even though appellant society is not liable to pay the Advance Tax as per provisions of section 208 of the I T Act. Therefore, Interest charged at Rs.29,822/-, u/s.234 B of the IT Act, may please

Pardeep Shah, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1222/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

order on the ground that CIT(A) has declined to admit appeal on account of alleged non-payment of tax due on returned income / advance tax payable where returned is not filed. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel submitted that an addition of Rs.13 ... action of the AO before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however declined to admit the appeal of the assessee on the ground that advance tax payable under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act has not been paid by the assessee. The CIT(A) has thus dismissed the appeal

Arvindsinh Ishvarsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 248(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 548

NFAC [(CIT(A)], Delhi (for short NFAC) for AY 2012-13 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for non-payment of advance tax and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.37,33,030/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 21 The Id. NFAC ... filed his ITR for AY 2012-13 In view of no taxable income so that he was not liable to pay even advance tax therefore, there was no liability to pay the amount equal to advance tax as per sec.249(4)(b). 3.2. That in the facts and circumstances

Sri Keshamul Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 219/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 219/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sri Kesharmul Agarwal,…………. …..………..Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Atopa1445Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-3(1), Gangtok, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhanupath, While Hall Campus, P.O. Rajbaheri, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the assessee failed to make payment of advance tax, which was payable by him and, therefore, as per section 249(4), clause (b), his appeal is not maintainable. The finding recorded ... returned by him; or 2.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

Sh. Naresh Kumar, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

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

ITA 329/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

income as well as not paid an amount 2 SHRI NARESH KUMAR VS ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, the appeal is not liable to be admitted by incorrectly interpreting the provision of Section

Smt. Shakuntala Vijaykumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 796/BANG/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutamchand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

from the partnership firm in the financial year 2017-18 and the sum seized was offered to be treated as payment towards the advance tax. The assessee vide letter dated 27/11/2019 also submitted that at the time of search, she sought time to recall the source of cash found during

M/S Dhanlaxmi Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 207/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68

committed the cash receipts of Rs. 5,10,96,000/– . The assessee firm has neither disclosed any income nor paid any Advance Tax. Assessee explained that the advance cash of Rs. 5,10,96,000/– was received from the customers for the 3 M/S Dhanlaxmi Builders & Developers property located

Osia Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1546/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

learned CIT(A), we notice that the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on technical ground that the assessee did not pay advance tax as mandated u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act, which is applicable to assessees who have not filed return of income. In this regard ... return of income for the year under consideration and hence in terms of sec.249(4)(b) of the Act, the assessee should have paid advance tax due for this year in order to get the 2 Assessment Year : 2017-18 appeal admitted. However, the assessee has not paid advance tax

Bezawada Narayanamurthy, Tirupathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 358/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.358/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Bezawada Vs. Income Tax Officer Narayanamurthy Ward 1(1) Tirupathi Tirupati Pan:Aespn6071N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

excess of minimum amount liable for taxes in the impugned A.Y and the question of making admitted tax or an amount equal to advance tax payable does not arise. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee ... because the assessee has not paid the admitted taxes or amount equivalent to the amount of advance tax which was Page 3 of 5 ITA No 358 of 2024 Bezawada Narayanamurthy payable by him. We find no merit in the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) for the simple

Godrej Projects Development Ltd. (Into Which Godrej Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Has Been Amalgamated), Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 01/Mum/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia – Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 208Section 234BSection 234FSection 250

availed the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (in short ‘ICDS’) during the impugned assessment year and calculated the tax accordingly. The assessee deposited the advance-tax as per section 208& 210 of the Act considering the ICDS. After the end of previous year in the month of July ... assessee only challenged the interest levied under section 234B & 234C of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) as the delay of payment of advance-tax is not willful and not the assessee’s prior intimation. So, the total interest demanded U/s 234B & 234C be deleted. Ld.CIT(A) accepted

Vijay Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 774/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Chaudhary Addl. CIT
Section 249(3)

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 behalf, the [*] [Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Fidelity Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sumisha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 37(1)

Limited vs DCIT (ITA No. 536/Del-2015) held that interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act for non/ short payment of advance tax installment and delay in payment of income tax respectively should not be levied on such additional income declared by the assessee in its modified return ... 234B was levied by the AO. 37. It was submitted that the liability to pay interest arises on the ground of failure to pay advance tax and in the instant case, it was submitted that the assessee had no occasion to pre-empt and make the estimate of income

Mewat Grit Udyog (Since Dissolved) Through Its Successor Nkb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 372/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 254Section 263Section 40

section 234C of Rs. 2,982/-. The credit of prepaid taxes of Rs. 1,13,22,241/- (TDS of Rs. 43,33,108/- and Advance Tax of Rs. 27,66,479/- plus Regular Assessment Tax of Rs. 42,22,654/-) as claimed in the return of income is also given ... application dated 23.09.2021 claiming further refund of Rs. 7,40,377/-. In the application the whole difference in the amount of TDS and Advance Tax as computed by the Department from the one that was reflected in Form 26AS, was explained by the Assessee. 9. The TDS computed

Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari, Nandurbar vs. ITO, Ward, Dhule

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

ITA 642/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 142(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 44A

learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the condition of payment of advance tax as specified u/s 249(4)(b) without appreciating that the said condition was not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore ... Rs.5,32,310 declared by the appellant in belated ITR dated 28.03.2019 filed in 2 response to notice u/s 142(1) and the (advance) tax liability on the balance income of Rs.1127698 assessed by the A.O. was disputed by the assessee in appeal and hence, the provisions of section

Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

that in Wool comber'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

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

declaration, consequential relief is sought against Ext.P2 assessment order levying tax at the enhanced rate of 60% and surcharge @25% on the 'advance tax'. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition by a cryptic judgment relying on Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Wahab ... preisous financial year. 15. In the financial year 2016-17 (tself the tax as provided under section 115BBE and the surcharge on advance tax was available as discernible from the IT Act and Finance Act. 2016 as it stood on 1.4.2016 itself. A major misdemeanor leading to assessment of income

Swasthik Financiers, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri

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

ITA 752/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115BSection 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

addition made by the ld. AO is subject matter of appeal before the NFAC, New Delhi. Hence, there is no question of payment of advance tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. Even otherwise, the assessee has filed the challan for payment of Rs.4,700/- towards its admitted tax