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

      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