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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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