“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

Harish Chandra Purohit, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Ratlam

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 221/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

assessment year under consideration. The assessee has stated in his submission that the cash was deposited for the purpose of payment of advance tax. The assessee has further stated that the cash of Rs.14,64,000/- was out of sale proceeds of his business activities as a trader of bullion ... from his business activities involving the sale of bullion, It has also been claimed that this amount was subsequently utilized for the payment of advance tax, as reflected in Form 26AS Furthermore, the appellant has asserted that he has disclosed substantial business income in the return of income, which, according

Idemitsu Lube India Private Limited, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3876/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhidemitsu Lube India Dcit Private Limited,Plotno.31, Circle 10(1) Additional Patalganga, Vs. New Delhi M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Talukapanvel, Khalapur, Raigad, Maharashtra- 410220 Pan-Aabci5684A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Katan K. Ved, Ca Respondent Sh. S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr By Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154

Computation Sheet at SI. No. 42 'TOTAL INTEREST AND FEE PAYABLE 42=(37+38+39+40+41 )' without any basis, disregarding the advance tax paid of INR 11,30,00,000 (being already in excess of tax liability of the Appellant). 4. Ground No. 4: That on the facts

Punyashila Automobiles, Hoshangabad vs. ITO2, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 476/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani**

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

rounded off to Rs. 21,75,790/-) after making a disallowance/addition of Rs. 13,95,474/- [The AO also denied credit of advance-tax of Rs. 45,000/- to assessee but the CIT(A) has already resolved this issue and the same is not a part of present appeal before

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

next issue raised through ground No. 20 by the assessee is that the lower authority erred in not allowing the credit of Advance Tax and Tax deducted at source for Rs. 17.5 crore 0.3 crores respectively. 48. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record ... grievance of the assessee in Ground No. 20 relates to non-grant of credit for Advance Tax and Tax Deducted at Source as claimed in the return of income. It is a settled position that credit for advance tax paid and tax deducted at source is to be allowed

The Jindva Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-5 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 516/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty proceedings may please be quashed. 05. 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 and 234C requires to be deleted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

stated that the assessee was unable to immediately explain the discrepancy and an amount of ₹25,00,000 was offered as income, on which advance tax was paid. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the statement as an admission of undisclosed investment and added the entire amount ... Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee had admitted discrepancies during the survey operation and had paid advance tax on the additional income offered, which indicates acceptance of the additions. It was further contended that the change of section

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 737/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 736 & 737/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rajat Kumar Gupta, V Income Tax Officer-1, Near Power House Road, S Kharsiya Marg, Tatapani, Ramanujganj, S.O., Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Surguja- 497220, C.G. Ambikapur-497335, C.G. Pan: Bpfpg5887N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since Facts, Grounds & Issues Involved Therein Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together For Adjudication By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

returned by him or 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. The relevant provision is reproduced as under- “[(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless ... 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 {"**] [Joint Commissioner

Rajat Kumar Gupta, Surguja, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 736/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

M/S. Bms Sales Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

offered a summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary surrender of income and thereafter advance tax for the said surrendered of income was also deposited, but thereafter it was contended by the assessee that the surrender was made under threat or coercion and that

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asst CIT Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal, we confirm the aforesaid action of the CIT(A). All the grounds raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed

ITA 6977/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawala &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 14A

noted that in Woo/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

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 3313/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

stated that no interest u/s 234B of the Act is chargeable in case of the assessee for any shortfall in payment of advance tax up to A.Y. 2012-13, since income of the assessee was subject to TDS obligations in hands of Indian payers, as held ... financial year 2012-13, the amount of income-tax which is deductible or collectible at source can be reduced by the assessee while calculating advance tax. The said ground is decided accordingly. ITA No. 1834/DEL/2009 [A.Y 2002-03] ITA No. 1835/DEL/2009 [A.Y 2003-04] ITA No. 1836/DEL/2009

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1836/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1835/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1834/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

ITA 1833/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Indruj Sngh Rai, Spl. Counsel

Section 234ASection 250(1)(a)Section 9(1)(vi)

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

paying due Tax/Advance Tax by the appellant whereas the admitted Tax Liability is 'NIL' and the appellant was not liable to pay any advance tax in view of his income not exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is without considering