Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 423 "Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

15 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Document compared: Section 423 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as appearing in the enacted Act) and Clause 423 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (the Bill text supplied). Both texts deal with interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. The provisions affect taxpayers required to furnish returns, and the income-tax department in calculating and demanding interest. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Clause 423 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (hereinafter "Clause 423 (Bill)"). Subject matter: interest chargeable for defaults in furnishing return of income. Coverage: outlines when simple interest at the rate implicit in the formula I = 1% x A x T becomes payable, defines the starting and ending dates for computation across specified circumstances, prescribes treatment where post-assessment orders alter tax, and defines components included in "tax paid". Definitions or explanations provided in the text: limited to the formula and the Table; the Bill supplies a definition of "tax paid" in sub-section (4)(d) with enumerated items (i)-(vii). No separate definitions section is provided.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 423 imposes simple interest for defaults in furnishing a return of income. The interest is computed by the formula I = 1% x A x T, where A is the "amount of tax on which interest is payable" (as specified in sub-section (2)) and T is the number of months comprised in the period commencing on the day after the "starting date" and ending on the "ending date" specified in the Table. Sub-section (2) contains a Table that maps specific circumstances to starting date, ending date and the tax base (A) for interest computation. The Table covers four scenarios: (1) return furnished u/s 263(1), (4) or (6) or in response to a notice u/s 268(1) after the due date; (2) no return furnished under the said sections; (3) return required by a notice under an unspecified section issued after certain determinations and furnished late; and (4) where such a notice requires a return and no return is furnished. Sub-section (3) deals with the consequence of orders (under a list of sections) that increase or reduce the tax base for interest, prescribing issuance of notice of demand in prescribed form where interest increases, and refund of excess interest where interest is reduced. Sub-section (4) contains qualifying notes, including exclusions of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax bases, reduction of interest payable by amounts of interest paid u/s 266, and the detailed meaning of "tax paid". Sub-section (5) treats an assessment made for the first time u/s 279 as a "regular assessment" for purposes of the section.

Interpretation

Legislative intent as indicated by the Bill text: to provide a simple, uniform interest formula for late or non-furnishing of returns and to tie the interest computation periods to concrete events (due date, date of furnishing, date of completion of assessment, dates specified in notices). The Table-driven approach indicates an intent to vary the tax base (A) and the start/end dates according to factual circumstances of how and when returns are filed or not filed. The inclusion of a detailed "tax paid" definition shows an intent to net off various prepayments and credits from the tax base when computing interest. The provision for adjustment upon post-assessment orders (sub-section (3)) manifests an intent to align interest levies with the final assessed tax position.

Exceptions/Provisos

Carve-outs or qualifications present in the Bill include:

  • Exclusion of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax base (4)(a)-(b).
  • Reduction of interest payable by interest already paid u/s 266 (4)(c).
  • Specific items constituting "tax paid" (4)(d)(i)-(vii), which serve as offsets against the tax base for interest calculation.
  • Where an assessment is made for the first time u/s 279, it is to be regarded as a regular assessment (5).

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A return filed late in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is the due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of furnishing; A is tax on total income as determined u/s 270(1) (if regular assessment not made) or tax determined under regular assessment, reduced by "tax paid". (All other specifics of amounts and dates Not stated in the document.)
  • Example 2: No return furnished in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of completion of assessment u/s 271; A is tax on total income determined under regular assessment reduced by "tax paid". (Concrete amounts and computation Not stated in the document.)
  • Example 3: Return required by a notice (serial number 3) but furnished after expiry of time allowed under such notice. Starting date is the date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice (Bill text); ending date is date of furnishing; A is amount by which reassessed tax exceeds earlier tax. (The Bill text contains an omission in the cross-reference to the notice section; specifics Not stated in the document.)

Interplay

The Bill text expressly references multiple other provisions (sections 263, 268, 270, 271, 279, 280, 266, 267, 287, 288, 289, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378, 206). Interplay with those provisions is central to determining starting/ending dates, the tax base (A), and credits. The Bill, as supplied, contains at least one omitted cross-reference (a missing section number in the Table at serial number 3) and a differing cross-reference for the tax credit clause (206(13) vs the multi-paragraph references in the Act). These differences create potential interpretive issues and could require reconciliation with the substantive provisions of the referenced sections; however, the content of those referenced sections is Not stated in the document.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

  • Starting date for notice-required returns (serial numbers 3 and 4): The enacted Section 423 (Act) uses "The last date of time allowed under such notice" as the starting date for serial numbers 3 and 4. The Clause 423 of Bill (Old Version) uses "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice" (for both serial numbers 3 and 4 in the Bill).
    • Practical impact: shifting the stated starting date by one day will change the counted months (T) in the formula I = 1% x A x T in some cases; whether the difference produces a material change depends on the method of counting months under the section (not further specified in the documents). It can lead to one additional month being counted in some interpretations, thereby increasing interest liability slightly in some cases.
  • Row 3 starting date wording: In the Act text, for serial number 3 the Starting date is "The last date of time allowed under such notice." The Bill text, for serial number 3, states "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice."
    • Practical impact: same as above; potential to alter the period used for interest computation.
  • Omissions/typographical differences affecting clarity: The Bill's Table entry for serial number 3 contains an apparent omission - "Where return of income is required by a notice u/s issued after..." (the section number is missing). The Act provides the relevant contextual references (Act shows section 280 in related contexts).
  • Practical impact: omission creates ambiguity in the Bill text about which notice provision is referred to; this could cause interpretive uncertainty unless corrected. The Act text does not exhibit that omission in the supplied extract.
  • "Tax paid" definition - tax credit cross-references: The Act's clause (4)(d)(vii) defines "tax paid" to include "any tax credit allowed to be set off as per sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)." The Bill (Old Version) substitutes "(vii) any tax credit allowed to be set off as per section 206(13)."
    • Practical impact: this is a substantive difference in cross-references. If the Bill's singular reference is intended to capture the same set of credits, the drafting does not make that clear. Depending on the actual content of section 206 in the statute (not stated in the document), taxpayers may lose (or gain) certain credits being treated as "tax paid" for interest computation. As the document supplied does not state the content of section 206, the practical effect cannot be fully determined from the text alone.
  • Form of notice of demand: Sub-section (3)(a) in the Act reads "in such form as may be prescribed"; the Bill reads "in the form as prescribed."
    • Practical impact: stylistic/minor drafting difference; both phrases point to prescribed form, but "such form as may be prescribed" is the more conventional legislative formulation. No clear substantive impact in isolation.
  • Other structural/wording differences: Minor variations in punctuation, paragraphing and referential phrases occur across the two texts (for example, use of "the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in such form as may be prescribed specifying the sum payable" vs "shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the form as prescribed specifying the sum payable").
    • Practical impact: primarily drafting and clarity; no express substantive change beyond the items noted above based on the supplied texts.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: The precise starting date language (whether the last date of time allowed or the day after that date) will affect calculation of months (T) - which could increase or decrease interest by the formula provided. Taxpayers filing in response to notices should be alert to how the start date is to be computed. Where the Bill's cross-references differ (notably to section 206), taxpayers should verify which tax credits count as "tax paid" for interest computations - the Bill text introduces uncertainty. The omission of a section number in serial number 3 may create avoidable disputes until corrected.
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text makes clear that dates of notices, dates of furnishing of returns, dates of completion of assessments and amounts of tax determined at various stages are determinative items. Parties should maintain contemporaneous records showing notice dates, time allowed under notices, dates of filing, assessments and any payments or credits claimed (details of records to be kept Not stated in the document).

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 423 (Bill) applies a simple interest formula I = 1% x A x T for defaults in furnishing returns, tying the interest period to specific starting and ending events listed in a Table.
  • There are material drafting differences between the Bill and the enacted Section 423: notably in the exact stated starting dates for notice-driven cases and in the cross-references used to define tax credits included as "tax paid".
  • Shifts in starting date wording (last date vs date immediately following) can alter interest months counted and thus interest liability; the Bill language tends to state the day after, potentially increasing periods in some views.
  • The Bill text contains an omission (missing section reference in serial number 3 of the Table) creating interpretive ambiguity that requires correction or legislative clarification.
  • The Bill lists prescribed mechanisms for adjustment where post-assessment orders alter tax and requires notice of demand or refund accordingly.
  • The provision for reduction of interest by interest already paid u/s 266 and the detailed enumeration of items constituting "tax paid" show an intent to prevent double charging and to net prepayments and credits.

Full Text:

Section 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

Topics

Acts Income Tax