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 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

Acts Income Tax