“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. Gupta Sons, Bhopal vs. The ACIT1 (1), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 54/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Gupta Sons, Ito, 46, Ram Laxmi Parisar, 1(4), बनाम/ Malviya Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaefg8044L Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya & Shri Sumit Khabya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in not deleting levy of interest u/s 234B when on the face of record there was no liability to pay advance tax on assessee in view of assessed loss.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present

Damco India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 154Section 250Section 253(1)

case and in law, the NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) denying legitimate credit of advance tax paid amounting to INR 1,10,00,000 which was otherwise allowable and could not be claimed in the return of income. 2. On the facts ... been quantified since the grounds relate to a single issue and INR. 1,10,00,000 is entirely a credit for legitimate advance tax paid by the Appellant that needs to be granted in totality.” 3. The only dispute raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is pertaining

M/S. Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bhilwara

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 411/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any 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 and any amount shown in the balance-sheet

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur

ITA 37/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Rpr/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Jila Sahakari Kendriya- The Assistant Commissioner – Bank Maryadit, Of Income Tax, Opp. Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Circle-3(1), G.E.Road, Raipur (Cg). Raipur. [Pan: Aaaaj 2713 L] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.K.Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

justified. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in remanding the matter pertaining to double disallowance of Rs. 1,52,40,896/- on account of advance tax and TDS to AO, without adjudicating the same on merits. The action of Ld.CIT(A) remanding the matter to the AO is illegal, arbitrary ... includes payment of Rs.2,98,14,297/- on account of reserve fund of interest from Apex Bank, Rs.1,25,00,000/- on account of Advance Tax, Rs.1,26,000/- on account of Income Tax payment for 4th Floor and Rs.26,14,896/- on account of TDS deducted on FD totaling

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

basis of the return, or proof of the tax, if any, claimed to have been deducted or collected at source or the advance tax or tax on self-assessment, if any, claimed to have been paid or any document or copy of any account or form or report of audit

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

No.12 Ground No.8 Disallowance under section Ground No.13 Ground No.9 36(1)(va) Disallowance under section 43B Ground No.14 Ground No.10 Short credit for Advance Tax - Ground No.11 Denial of Foreign Tax Credit - Ground No.12 Short credit of TDS Ground No.15 Ground No.13 Interest under section 234C & Ground No.16 Ground ... also. 20 ITA 2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd 23. Ground No.11 pertains to the Assessing Officer not giving credit towards the advance tax paid by the assessee for an amount of Rs.30,00,00,000. The ld AR in this regard submitted that the assessing officer

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

Sas Institute (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1567/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, DR

Section 140Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

that the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment is due to difference of opinion and as at the due date of payment of advance tax by no means the Appellant could have estimated such adjustments and consequential tax on such adjustment. 12. Erroneous levy of penalty under section

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1152/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 92C

ground No.7 raised by the assessee is with regard to brought forward loss not allowed to be set off and full credit for advance tax not given while computing the tax liability. These two matters require factual verification and, hence, they are remanded to the file

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1702/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 92C

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1438/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

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

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1437/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1724/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

value of the assets in the balance sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source of as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance sheet ... 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

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1723/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1722/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1721/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Caddie Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Central Circle 17, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2014/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 234C(1)Section 250

normal provisions of the Act, the tax liability was discharged Piramal Enterprises Ltd. ITA no.1293/Mum./2023 under the MAT provisions by way of advance tax, and a refund was determined amounting to Rs.10,21,755. The said revised return was processed vide intimation dated 12/04/2009 issued under section ... From Schedule 1 to revised competition of income, we find that the assessee sold the shares on 01/03/2017 and in this regard also paid advance tax of Rs.10,75,00,000 on 15/03/2017, as is evident from the challan of payment of advance tax on page 61 of the paper

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/MUM/2022[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)

Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

funds also remains with custodian, in fact, it is the learned Assessing Officer who should have asked the custodian to remit amount of advance tax in case of the assessee at the time of each of advance tax installment payable. On maintainability, he submitted that assessee is challenging the order