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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Comparison of section 424 "Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax." 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 424 Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 424 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out the liability to pay simple interest where an assessee defaults in payment of advance tax or pays advance tax that is less than 90% of the assessed tax. It prescribes the rate (1% per month or part thereof), the computation period, and adjustments on reassessment, recomputation, rectification orders and payments made before final determination. The provision affects taxpayers required to pay advance tax and tax administration for assessment and demand processes. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 424 interacts with sections 404, 406, 407 (advance tax provisions), section 270(1) (determination of total income), section 279 (reassessment/recomputation), sections 287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378 (orders affecting assessments), section 266 (payment of tax), section 267 (additional income-tax), sections 157, 159, 160 (reliefs/deductions), and section 206 (tax credits). The Clause defines the scope of interest chargeable for defaults in payment of advance tax and specifies the basis of computation (assessed tax) and adjustments upon subsequent orders and payments. The text provides a working definition of "assessed tax" in subsection (2) with specified reductions. Any definitions beyond these cross-references: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Clause applies where, in any tax year, an assessee liable to pay advance tax u/s 404 either (a) has failed to pay advance tax or (b) has paid advance tax u/ss 406 or 407 which is less than 90% of the assessed tax. In such cases the assessee is liable to simple interest at 1% per month or part of a month for the period beginning from 1st April following that tax year up to either (i) the date of determination of total income u/s 270(1) or (ii) the date of completion of regular assessment. The quantum on which interest is charged is (i) the assessed tax where there was total failure to pay, and (ii) the shortfall where advance tax paid is less than 90% of assessed tax.

      Interpretation

      The Clause prescribes a penal/compensatory charge for underpayment or non-payment of advance tax. The use of a fixed percentage (90%) as a threshold creates a safe harbour for taxpayers whose advance payments meet that proportion of the eventual assessed tax. The period of liability begins from 1 April following the tax year - indicating a uniform start-date for the interest calculation irrespective of when during the year the shortfall occurred. The statutory construction suggests interest is calculated on assessed tax subject to reductions expressly listed in subsection (2). Legislative intent: Not stated in the document beyond the text; interpretive principles indicated by the text are limited to the explicit thresholds and reduction items.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Clause contains no express discretionary exceptions beyond the listed reductions in computing "assessed tax". There is an implicit exception where advance tax paid is at least 90% of assessed tax - in which case subsection (1)(b) does not trigger interest. Provisos about inclusion or exclusion of additional income-tax u/s 267 are given in subsection (3). Any further exceptions or administrative relaxations: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer liable to pay advance tax pays nothing during the year. After completion of assessment u/s 270(1), assessed tax (after permitted reductions) is Rs. 100,000. Interest at 1% per month or part-month is payable on Rs. 100,000 for the period from 1 April following the tax year up to the date of determination u/s 270(1). (Numbers used only to illustrate method; exact period and months determine final interest.)
      • Example 2: A taxpayer pays advance tax of Rs. 80,000 while assessed tax (after reductions) is Rs. 100,000. Because advance tax paid is 80% (<90%) of assessed tax, interest is payable on the shortfall of Rs. 20,000 at 1% per month or part-month from 1 April following the tax year until the assessment determination date.
      • Example 3: Where reassessment u/s 279 increases the amount on which interest was payable, the increased amount A is computed as A = B - C, where B is tax on total income after reassessment and C is tax on total income determined initially. Interest is then charged on A at 1% per month from 1 April following the tax year to the date of reassessment/recomputation.

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly interacts with: (i) advance tax provisions (ss. 404, 406, 407) by creating interest liability for defaults; (ii) section 270(1) determinations and regular assessments (including first-time assessments under s.279); (iii) sections allowing reliefs/deductions/foreign tax credits (ss.157, 159, 160) and tax deducted/collected at source (Chapter XIX-B) which reduce the "assessed tax" base for interest; (iv) payment u/s 266 and other payments, which reduce interest liability per subsection (4); and (v) reassessment/recomputation and rectification orders (ss.279, 287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378) which increase or reduce the interest and trigger demand or refund. No reference to rules or circulars outside these sections: Not stated in the document. Potential interpretive tensions include the precise operation when both section 270(1) determination and a regular assessment are made, and the drafting distinction between conjunctive vs disjunctive endpoints (see earlier differences).

      Differences between Section 424 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 424 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Subsection (1)(i)/(ii) wording: The Act (Document 1) separates the two alternative endpoints with a semicolon and uses "and" connecting clauses for the period: "(i) upto the date of determination of total income u/s 270(1); and (ii) upto the date of completion of regular assessment, where a regular assessment is made,". The Bill (Document 2) uses "or" between (i) and (ii).
        • Practical impact: minor drafting difference that could affect whether the period is conjunctive or disjunctive in interpretation. The Act's wording suggests distinct applications depending on whether a regular assessment is made; the Bill explicitly presents them as alternatives.
      • Definition of "assessed tax" - subsection (2)(f): The Act (Document 1) lists tax credits allowed to be set off as per sections "206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)". The Bill (Document 2) refers to "section 206(13)".
        • Practical impact: substantive - the Act narrows or specifies particular subclauses of section 206 (by cross-referencing multiple sub-paragraphs) whereas the Bill references a different provision (206(13)). This changes which tax credits are excluded from the amount on which interest is computed; consequently, taxpayers' assessed tax base for interest could increase or decrease depending on which credits are included or excluded.
      • Subsection (5) drafting: The Act (Document 1) frames the antecedent as "Where, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation u/s 279, the amount on which interest was payable ... is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay..." whereas the Bill (Document 2) begins "Where, the amount on which interest was payable ... is increased, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation u/s 279, the assessee shall be liable..."
        • Practical impact: purely drafting/sequence variation without a clear substantive change.
      • Subsection (6)(a) form phrasing: The Act (Document 1) states "in such form as may be prescribed specifying the sum payable" while the Bill (Document 2) states "in the form as prescribed specifying the sum payable".
        • Practical impact: negligible - both indicate prescribed form; the Bill's phrasing could be read as referring to a specific existing prescribed form, the Act's phrasing permits future prescription.
      • Other differences: No other substantive additions, removals or new provisos are present between the two documents. Several differences are stylistic or drafting only.
        • Practical impact: most changes appear drafting/clarificatory except the cross-reference change in subsection (2)(f), which is substantively significant for which tax credits reduce "assessed tax".

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers required to estimate and pay advance tax should ensure aggregate advance payments are at least 90% of expected assessed tax to avoid interest exposure at 1% per month. The specific list in subsection (2) of amounts that reduce "assessed tax" is central to calculating the 90% threshold; differences in which tax credits are recognised (see cross-reference differences between Bill and Act) materially affect exposure.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Taxpayers should retain documentary proof of tax deducted/collected at source, claims u/ss 157, 159, 160, and evidence of foreign tax paid and credits (for subsections (2)(a)-(e)). Records of payments u/s 266 and any notifications/orders under the listed assessment sections are also necessary to calculate and support reductions, refunds or increased demands described in the Clause. The document does not prescribe specific forms or timeframes for claims-Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause imposes simple interest at 1% per month or part-month for underpayment/non-payment of advance tax, from 1 April following the tax year to assessment determination or completion of regular assessment.
      • A 90% safe harbour is provided: interest triggers where advance tax paid is less than 90% of assessed tax.
      • "Assessed tax" is expressly reduced by specified items (TDS/TCS under Chapter XIX-B, reliefs under ss.157, 159, deductions under s.160, and certain tax credits), which directly affects interest computation.
      • Reassessment/recomputation that increases the taxable amount attracts additional interest computed by formula A = B - C for the period from 1 April to the date of reassessment; reductions or increases pursuant to other specified orders lead to refunds or demands respectively.
      • Payments made before determination affect interest: interest is calculated up to payment date, reduced by interest already paid under s.266, and thereafter calculated on any remaining shortfall.
      • Practical compliance focuses on proper advance tax estimation, timely payments, and meticulous maintenance of records supporting reductions and credits.
      • Several drafting variances between Bill and Act are minor, but the cross-reference to tax credits (subsection (2)(f)) is a substantive change with potential material effect on interest exposure.

      Full Text:

      Section 424 Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax