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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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