← 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

Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel L/H Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navsari

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

ITA 345/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law in directing to charge Interest u/s 234B/C, insofar as the assessee is a Senior Citizen not liable for Advance Tax under the Act. 5. PRAYER: 5.1 The notice u/s 148 may be kindly quashed. 5.2 The issue may adjudicated. 5.3 The transfer of case to Navsari

Krypton Distributors LLP (Earlier Known As Krypton Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Krypton Distributors Llp (Earlier Known As Krypton Ito, Ward 12(1), Distributors P. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Flat No.1A, 1, Abdul Rasul Chowringhee Square, Vs. Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700026, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5298G Assessee By : Shri Manoj Katuruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Katuruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

summary discloser of income as undisclosed and the department accepted the summary Krypton Distributors LLP ; A.Y. 2013-14 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

ACIT CC 2(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Aisha Dhiraj Gogia, Ahmedabad

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

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

Ubs Business Solutions (India) Private Limited (Successor to Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. PCIT, Pune - 1, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

erroneous because the Ld. 2 AO did not call for documents supporting tax computation made during ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] June 2020 for the advance tax estimation. The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO is not duty bound to call for such documents. (b) Failed to appreciate that

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2519/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2518/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2517/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2516/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Chennai - 600 001. Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Seven Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-18, All Dated 11.08.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called `The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 To 2021-22. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2515/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-194), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2514/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2513/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that ... 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 clause (a) is not applicable to the appellant as no return has been filed by the appellant either

Kae Capital Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

appreciate that, as per the provisions of the section 234C of the Act, interest is leviable only on the shortfall or failure to pay advance tax based on the returned income, and not on the assessed income. 5.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... section 234C of the Act, considering that the Appellant had filed a Nil return 5 of income and was therefore not liable to pay advance tax for the relevant assessment year.” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts

Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 5741/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sugrabahen Umer Bhorania Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6Th Floor, Flat 602, Murga Giran 20(3)(1), Mumbai Chs, Grant Road (E), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400008 400012 Pan: (Cddpb8620D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078510218(1) Dated 15.07.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.09.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Of Rs. 45,10,345/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

that in the matter of assessment, since total income of the assessee is assessed at Rs.1,36,16,000/-, assessee was suppose to pay advance tax. According to him, since assessee has not deposited the demand before filing of this appeal, she has violated the provisions of Section ... admitted as assessee had not filed the return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that

Banvari, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sriganganagar

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

ITA 202/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

submitted that the CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and law while denying the admission of appeal on account of non-payment of advance tax as provided u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act without appreciating the contention of the appellant in view of the intention of the legislature ... intends to take advantage of appeal under Chapter XX of the Income Tax that he should pay the admitted tax liability of payment of advance tax on the admitted income before filing the appeal. The AR argued that the CIT(A), while rejecting the admission of appeal on account

Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, Solapur

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

ITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.832/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Swaminath Baburao Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, C37, Siddheshwar Market S Ward-2(3), Solapur. Yard, Hyderabad Road, Solapur – 431005. Maharashtra. Pan: Akwpp4321P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2025 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 27.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 292B

this case, ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as unadmitted. Ld.CIT(A) has stated in the order that Assessee has not paid any advance tax. The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order are reproduced here as under : “6. Since the appellant has not filed return ... response of notice u/s 148 of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is in fructuous and is, therefore, dismissed. 5 7. The appeal is dismissed

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

universalise quality basic education, is proposed to be levied at the rate of two per cent on the amount of tax deducted or advance tax paid, inclusive of surcharge.‖ 22. The provisions of the Finance Act 2011 relevant to the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. 2012-13 are also relevant

Discovery Digital Network Private Limited, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik

ITA 2886/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 23Section 234DSection 244A

demand of Rs. Nil accepting the income of Rs.2,49,28,870/- returned by the assessee. The assessee inadvertently missed to claim credit of advance tax paid amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- in the return of income. No credit of advance tax was therefore granted to the assessee ... Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ("Ld. AO”). The Ld. AO accepted the rectification application filed by the assessee and gave credit of advance tax along with interest u/s 244A of the Act amounting to Rs.4,70,000/-. Accordingly the refund along with interest amounting to Rs.4

Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited, Lower Parel vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5338/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

taxmann.com 636 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held that section 219 of the Act also mandates that the credit of advance tax shall be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. Thus, the inadvertence on the part of the assessee to claim the credit for the advance tax while ... Private Limited upholding the principle of natural justice for imparting substantial justice. Admittedly the deduction and deposit TDS is a form of deposit of advance tax for which the assessee is lawfully entitled to be given credit otherwise keeping the said amount shall amount to unjust enrichment and will

Saugaat, Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward 4, Ambala Cantt. (Assessment Unit), Ambala Cantt

ITA 443/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Serial No. 9 of Form-35, which asks whether the assessee—being a non-filer—has paid “an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable” in terms of section 249(4)(b), the assessee wrote “Not Applicable.” The CIT(A) noted that, except for attaching irrelevant documents such ... relating to the present assessment year. Since the assessee had not filed its return and had shown “Not Applicable” against the statutory requirement of advance-tax payment, the CIT(A) issued a specific notice dated 07.11.2023 requiring the assessee to clarify whether the amount equal to advance tax had been

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

this, the assessee could not file return of income under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, she has paid the advance tax of sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- even much before the date when the A.O. has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. Further