Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Understanding Advance Tax Thresholds : Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      30 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 404 Conditions of liability to pay advance tax.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 both outline the foundational statutory framework governing the liability to pay advance tax in India. These provisions are central to the administration of direct taxation, ensuring the timely collection of revenue by the State and promoting voluntary compliance among taxpayers. The evolution of these provisions reflects the legislature's intent to streamline tax collection, adapt to changing economic realities, and address administrative challenges.

      This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, including its objectives, operative mechanics, and practical implications. It further undertakes a detailed comparative analysis with Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, highlighting similarities, differences, and the broader legislative context. The discussion also considers the historical evolution of advance tax liability provisions, policy underpinnings, and the operational impact on taxpayers and tax administration.

      Objective and Purpose

      The core objective of advance tax provisions is to ensure a steady inflow of revenue to the government exchequer throughout the financial year, rather than concentrating tax collections at the end of the assessment year. This system mitigates the risk of tax evasion, reduces the burden of lump-sum payments on taxpayers, and aligns tax payments with the earning cycle of assessees.

      Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, like its predecessor Section 208, seeks to operationalize this policy by:

      • Identifying the threshold for advance tax liability;
      • Defining the quantum of tax that triggers the advance tax payment obligation;
      • Ensuring that the tax is paid during the year in which income is earned, thereby improving cash flows for the government and reducing compliance pressures during the annual return filing season.

      The legislative history of Section 208 demonstrates periodic adjustments in the threshold amount, reflecting inflationary trends, administrative convenience, and efforts to broaden or rationalize the tax base. The threshold was originally set at a lower level and has been periodically revised upwards, balancing revenue considerations with the need to avoid imposing undue compliance burdens on small taxpayers.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Text of Clause 404

      "Advance tax shall be payable by the assessee during a tax year, where the amount of such tax during that year, as computed under this Part, is ten thousand rupees or more."

      Key Elements of Clause 404

      1. Liability to Pay Advance Tax:
        The clause mandates that an assessee is liable to pay advance tax if the computed tax liability for the year equals or exceeds ten thousand rupees. The obligation is prospective and applies during the relevant tax year.
      2. Computation of Advance Tax:
        The computation is to be made "under this Part," referring to the relevant provisions in the Bill that specify the manner of ascertaining advance tax liability. This includes considering eligible deductions, exemptions, and set-offs.
      3. Threshold Amount:
        The threshold of ten thousand rupees serves as a filter, exempting assessees with negligible tax liability from the procedural requirements of advance tax.
      4. Timing:
        The phrase "during a tax year" clarifies that the liability arises in the year in which income is earned and not retrospectively.

      Interpretation and Potential Issues

      Clause 404 is drafted in clear and unambiguous terms, reflecting the legislature's intent to maintain simplicity and administrative efficiency. However, certain interpretative aspects merit attention:

      • Definition of 'Tax Year': The Bill refers to the "tax year," which should be defined elsewhere in the legislation. In the context of Indian tax law, this typically corresponds to the financial year (April 1 to March 31).
      • Computation Mechanism: The clause relies on computations "under this Part." The precise methodology, including treatment of rebates, credits, and carry-forward losses, must be consistent with other provisions of the Bill.
      • Applicability Across Taxpayer Categories: The provision is general and applies to all assessees, unless carve-outs are provided elsewhere (e.g., for senior citizens not having business income, as in the current law).

      Ambiguities and Potential for Judicial Interpretation

      While Clause 404 is succinct, potential ambiguities could arise regarding:

      • The treatment of fluctuating income streams or uncertain income during the year;
      • Interaction with provisions granting exemptions or special status to certain classes of taxpayers;
      • Whether the threshold is to be applied before or after adjusting for tax deducted at source (TDS) or other credits.

      Such issues may require clarificatory rules or administrative guidance to prevent disputes and ensure uniform application.

      Practical Implications

      Impact on Taxpayers

      • Compliance Burden: Taxpayers whose estimated tax liability exceeds ten thousand rupees must comply with advance tax payment schedules, including estimating income, computing tax, and making timely payments.
      • Cash Flow Management: The provision necessitates planning for periodic outflows, which can be particularly significant for businesses and professionals with variable incomes.
      • Penalties for Non-Compliance: Failure to pay advance tax as required may attract interest and penalty provisions, increasing the effective tax burden and exposing taxpayers to administrative action.

      Impact on Tax Administration

      • Revenue Streamlining: Advance tax payments improve the government's cash flow and reduce end-of-year revenue volatility.
      • Administrative Efficiency: By filtering out low-liability taxpayers, the threshold reduces the volume of small-value transactions, allowing tax authorities to focus on significant cases.

      Procedural Implications

      • Return Filing and Reconciliation: Advance tax payments are reconciled at the time of filing the annual return, with any excess or shortfall being adjusted or refunded as per statutory provisions.
      • Compliance Monitoring: Tax authorities may use data analytics and information returns to identify cases of underpayment or non-payment of advance tax.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Textual Comparison

      • Section 208 (1961 Act):
        "Advance tax shall be payable during a financial year in every case where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, is ten thousand rupees or more."
      • Clause 404 (2025 Bill):
        "Advance tax shall be payable by the assessee during a tax year, where the amount of such tax during that year, as computed under this Part, is ten thousand rupees or more."

      Key Similarities

      • Threshold Amount: Both provisions set the advance tax liability threshold at ten thousand rupees, reflecting a policy choice to exclude small taxpayers from the advance tax regime.
      • Trigger Event: Both require payment during the year in which the tax liability arises, aligning tax payments with income accrual.
      • General Applicability: Both are drafted to apply broadly to "the assessee," subject to exceptions elsewhere in the statute.

      Key Differences

      • Terminology:
        • Section 208 refers to "financial year," while Clause 404 uses "tax year." The change in terminology may reflect an effort to harmonize definitions or modernize statutory language, but substantively both refer to the same period unless otherwise defined.
        • Section 208 refers to computation "in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter," whereas Clause 404 specifies "under this Part." This may indicate a reorganization or renumbering of the statute in the new Bill.
      • Legislative Context:
        • Section 208 is embedded within a statutory framework that has evolved over decades, with numerous judicial interpretations, administrative circulars, and practical guidance.
        • Clause 404 is part of a new legislative initiative, potentially accompanied by revised definitions, computation mechanisms, or compliance procedures.
      • Historical Amendments:
        • Section 208 has undergone several amendments, with the threshold amount being revised upwards over time. The current threshold of ten thousand rupees was set by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. The historical context indicates responsiveness to economic and administrative changes.
        • Clause 404 carries forward the same threshold, suggesting continuity but also indicating that the legislature considers the existing threshold appropriate for present circumstances.

      Substantive and Procedural Parity

      Despite minor terminological and organizational differences, the substantive content of Clause 404 is virtually identical to Section 208. The advance tax regime continues to be anchored on the principle that taxpayers with a meaningful tax liability should contribute to the exchequer in advance, based on estimated income.

      Potential for Divergence

      The adoption of a new legislative framework (the Income Tax Bill, 2025) may lead to changes in definitions, computation methods, or exceptions elsewhere in the statute, which could affect the practical application of Clause 404. For instance, if the definition of "tax year" or "assessee" is altered, or if new exemptions are introduced, the scope of advance tax liability could shift.

      Possible Ambiguities and the Need for Clarification

      The simplicity of Clause 404 is both its strength and a potential source of ambiguity. Key areas that may require further clarification include:

      • Interaction with Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): Whether the ten thousand rupees threshold is to be computed before or after accounting for TDS credits. Under the current regime, advance tax liability is net of TDS, but this must be expressly clarified in the new framework.
      • Treatment of Senior Citizens: Under the existing law, resident individuals aged 60 years or more, not having income from business or profession, are exempt from advance tax. The new Bill should clarify whether such exemptions continue.
      • Applicability to Non-Residents: The provision applies to all "assessees," but the practical application to non-residents may depend on other provisions defining scope and nexus.

      Conclusion

      Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, faithfully preserves the essential features of Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining the threshold-based approach to advance tax liability. The provision is designed to ensure timely revenue collection, administrative efficiency, and taxpayer equity. While the drafting is clear and concise, the broader context of the new Bill may introduce definitional or procedural changes that could impact the application of Clause 404.

      The comparative analysis reveals a high degree of continuity, with only minor terminological and organizational adjustments. The retention of the ten thousand rupees threshold reflects a considered policy judgment, balancing the need for revenue with the avoidance of undue compliance burdens on small taxpayers. Going forward, administrative guidance and judicial interpretation may be required to address specific ambiguities, particularly in relation to computation methodologies, exemptions, and the interaction with other statutory provisions.


      Full Text:

      Clause 404 Conditions of liability to pay advance tax.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax