“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

Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 630/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.630/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Cypress Semiconductor The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology India Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.65/2, Begmane Laurel, C Block, Bagmane Tech Park C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcc2470Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Sumit Khurana, Ca Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Before The Tribunal. However, During The Course Of Hearing The Learned Ar Had Argued Only Two Grounds, Namely, Ground 2 & Ground 3. Ground 2 & 3 Argued By The Learned Ar Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

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

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

consequential and does not need specific adjudication and therefore dismissed 21. The issue of short grant of credit of TDS and advance tax raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 14 & 15 is remitted to the AO for verification and grant of correct credit of TDS and advance tax

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

same was discharged by the Appellant by way of taxes deducted at source amounting to INR 27,63,89,762 and advance tax amounting to INR 24,50,00,000 thereby claiming refund of INR 8,45,65,680. Subsequently, the case was picked up for scrutiny assessment under section

Mehul Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 384/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251(2)

balance sheet comprise of Loan & Advances, Debtors and Investments (in shares etc.). These assets almost match the figures of their Business Creditors. > The advance tax payments or self assessment tax payments are NIL, despite their Turn over running in to Several Crores. > Almost the entire TDS deducted (by the Builders

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

Assessing Officer had appreciated that these returns are verified as true and correct, she would have appreciated that leaving out Rs.1.40,00,000/- of advance tax in the original return cannot be a simple error. The difference in the balance sheet and P&L account should have prompted the Assessing

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

assessment year 2015-16 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground No.18 is raised by the assessee for non granting of credit for advance tax paid. The assessee is directed to furnish requisite evidences in respect of the advance tax paid. The Ld.AO is directed verify the same ... grant credit for the advance tax paid by assessee. IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 39 of 40 Accordingly, Ground no.18 raised by assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7.2 In view of the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

prescribed in section 234A also as per which, the assessee was liable to pay interest on the tax payable by him after reducing advance tax and TDS/TCS, if any, paid by him apart from some other reductions. The legal position is by now settled that charging of interest under various

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

same could not be relatable to the investments made by the Appellant. Other interest expenditure of Rs.29.12 lacs was incurred on buyer's credit, advance tax, TCS, late payment of various duties and taxes and bank interest etc, which has no nexus with the investments made by the Appellant

Taradevi Jyoti Kumar Bubna, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 711/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 154

this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not directing the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore to give credit of advance tax paid of Rs.30,000/- by the assessee and TDS credit of Rs.6,083/- claimed by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case ... filed by the assessee on 08/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,67,780/-. The assessee paid taxes by way of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. This return was duly processed by CPC Bangalore under intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was passed on 31/01/2016 raising demand of Rs.36

Kiran S Patel, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 233/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Chetan K. DhabaliaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 205

regard, we note that Chapter XVII of the Act provides for collection and recovery of taxes via two modes viz., (a) directly from assessee (advance tax/ self assessment tax) or (b) indirectly be deduction/collection at source (TDS/TCS). Section 192 of the Act casts the responsibility on the employer for deducting

Taurus Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 8

apportioned for the full year for the purpose of levy of interest u/s.234C of the Act in case of default of payment of advance tax. The assessee pleaded that the dividend income from M/s. Marico Ltd., was earned by the assessee only on 29/11/2017 and 09/03/2018 falling in third ... fourth quarters of the financial year respectively and hence, the advance tax on the said dividend income would become payable by the assessee only in third and fourth quarter which has been duly complied with by the assessee. Hence, there cannot be any levy of interest u/s.234C

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

raised for assessment year 2011-2012, reads as follows:- Corporate Tax Grounds: “11. 11.1 The learned AO erred in not considering partial credit for Advance Tax, while passing the final assessment order. The learned AO erred in granting incorrect advance tax amount of Rs.110,000,000/- as against claimed

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 418/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

M/S. G M Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

declaring income of ₹24,79,36,350/-. Total tax Liability was computed at Rs 85805812/-, MAT credit was claimed at Rs 49558162/- , total advance tax paid was shown at Rs 37051371 and refund due was claimed at Rs 803721/-. G.M. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16-17 04. On 10 February

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee failed to pay the advance tax, the Assessing Officer was right in charging interest u/s. 234B and 234C ... entire tax liability, it was obligation on the part of the assessee to make the deficit good by making the payments towards the advance tax; (ii) that since the assessee failed to pay the advance tax, the Assessing Officer was right in charging interest u/s. 234B and 234C

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 92C(3)Section 92D

during FY 2015-16 and in considering an amount of INR 43,552,715 as against INR 65,661,684. 18. Short credit of advance tax 18.1. The NeAC erred in not granting full credit of the advance tax paid by the Appellant and in considering an amount ... statistical purposes. 25. Ground nos. 16-19 are in respect of certain deductions claimed under chapter VIA, short credit of self assessment and advance tax granted by the Ld.AO and non granting of dividend distribution tax credit to assessee. 25.1 We direct the Ld.AO to consider the claim in accordance