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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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