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 425 "Interest for deferment 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 425 Interest for deferment of advance tax

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Section 425 (Interest for deferment of advance tax) prescribes interest liability where an assessee liable to pay advance tax u/s 404 fails to pay instalments in accordance with specified timelines and percentages. It affects taxpayers required to pay advance tax and the tax administration's recovery of interest; specified instalment due dates are 15 June, 15 September, 15 December and 15 March. Effective date or enactment/commencement is Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: section 425 (Interest for deferment of advance tax) read with section 404 (advance tax liability) and other cross-references within the Income-tax framework (e.g., section 2(40), sections 206, sections 157, 159, 160). The provision addresses interest chargeable on the shortfall of advance tax instalments compared to "tax due on the returned income." The text provides definitions and computational adjustments for "tax due on the returned income" in sub-section (5) and a specialized definition for "dividend" in sub-section (6). No express commencement or transitional provisions are stated in the document.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Section 425 applies to assessees liable to pay advance tax u/s 404, with a carve-out for the class of assessees referred to in sub-section (3). Where advance tax paid on current income on or before the instalment due date (15 June, 15 September, 15 December, 15 March) is less than the prescribed percentage of "tax due on the returned income," the assessee is liable to pay interest on the amount of shortfall at specified marginal rates: generally 3% on shortfalls for the first three instalments and 1% for the final instalment (15 March). The instalment percentages due on returned income are 15%, 45%, 75% and 100% respectively. Sub-section (2) provides two safe-harbour thresholds (12% by 15 June and 36% by 15 September) where no interest under sub-section (1) will be payable if those minima are met. Sub-section (3) deals with assessees who declare profits u/s 58(2) (Table: Sl. No. 1 or 3) or others liable to pay advance tax and prescribes simple interest at 1% on the shortfall in respect of the final instalment if the instalment paid on or before 15 March is less than tax due on returned income. Sub-section (4) gives exclusions from interest where the shortfall arises from underestimation or failure to estimate specified types of income (capital gains; income as per section 2(49)(n); first-time business/profession profits; dividend income) provided tax on such income is paid in full in any remaining instalments or by 31 March. Sub-section (5) defines "tax due on the returned income" as tax on total income declared in the return reduced by amounts of tax deducted/collected at source (Chapter XIX-B), reliefs u/ss 157, 159(1) and 159(2), deductions u/s 160, and specific tax credits referenced in section 206 sub-clauses. Sub-section (6) defines "dividend" by reference to section 2(40) but excludes sub-clause (e) thereof.

        Interpretation

        The text signals a legislative intent to (a) anchor interest liability to a taxpayer's "tax due on the returned income" thereby linking advance tax instalments to the final declared tax; (b) set graduated instalment percentages and modest interest rates on shortfalls (3% on interim shortfalls, 1% on final shortfall), and (c) provide relief where underestimation arises from certain types of income if tax is ultimately paid. The staged percentages encourage adherence to instalment timings. Any further legislative intent beyond these textual features is Not stated in the document.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Sub-section (2) operates as a safe-harbour: meeting low threshold percentages by June and September (12% and 36% respectively) eliminates interest under sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) excludes shortfalls attributable to certain specified incomes (capital gains; income u/s 2(49)(n); first-time business/profession profits; dividend income) provided the tax on such incomes is paid fully in later instalments or by 31 March. Sub-section (6) further narrows the dividend meaning by excluding section 2(40)(e). No other provisos (e.g., remissions, administrative discretions) are included in the text.

        Illustrations

        • Assessee A estimates and pays 10% of returned-income tax by 15 June (below the 12% safe-harbour) and later files a return showing total tax of Rs. 100; the shortfall till 15 June would be computed against the 15% instalment, and interest at 3% applies on that shortfall amount. (Computation details depend on amounts paid; numerical computation is Not stated in the document.)
        • Assessee B had a capital gains receipt realised late and therefore under-estimated advance tax for earlier instalments. Tax on the capital gains is paid in full by 31 March; sub-section (4) renders no interest payable for the shortfall attributable to that capital gains underestimation.
        • Assessee C (declaring profits u/s 58(2) Table Sl. No.1) pays less than 100% of tax due on returned income by 15 March; sub-section (3) prescribes simple interest at 1% on the shortfall.

        Interplay

        Section 425 cross-refers to section 404 (advance tax liability), Chapter XIX-B (TDS/TCS) and relief/deduction provisions (sections 157, 159, 160) and specific sub-clauses of section 206. The Act's specified cross-references to multiple sub-clauses of section 206 in sub-section (5)(f) refine the calculation base for "tax due on the returned income." There is no mention in the text of interacting Notifications, Rules, or Circulars beyond these statutory cross-references-any administrative clarifications or rates beyond the statutory text are Not stated in the document.

        Differences between the Clause 425 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 425 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

        • Table presentation and wording of the "Amount of shortfall" column:

          • Bill: Column D expressly lists the percentage itself (e.g. "15%."; "45%."; "75%."; "100%.") and annotates "being percentage of advance tax due as per column C..."
          • Act: Column D describes the shortfall temporally (e.g. "Shortfall till 15th day of June") rather than repeating the percentage.
          Practical impact: The Act's phrasing emphasises the temporal scope of the shortfall (shortfall up to that due date) rather than restating the percentage in column C; substantively there is no change to the instalment percentages or interest incidence, but the Act's wording may reduce ambiguity about computing the shortfall as the amount unpaid up to the specified date.
        • Tax-credit/deduction cross-references in sub-section (5)(f):

          • Bill: refers to "section 206(13)."
          • Act: refers to "sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)."
          Practical impact: The Act replaces a single numeric cross-reference with a set of specific sub-clauses. This narrows/clarifies which tax credits are to be excluded from the "tax due on the returned income" calculation; depending on what section 206(13) in the Bill encompassed, the Act's text is more granular and likely more precise for computation. The exact practical effect depends on the content of the referenced provisions (not stated in the document).
        • Addition of a specific definition for "dividend":

          • Bill: No separate subsection defining "dividend" is present in the Bill text provided.
          • Act: Sub-section (6) expressly provides that "dividend" has the meaning in section 2(40), but excludes sub-clause (e) thereof.
          Practical impact: The Act clarifies that not all items falling under the general statutory definition of "dividend" are included for the purposes of section 425; exclusion of sub-clause (e) narrows the scope. This affects whether a taxpayer's dividend receipts are treated as part of the income that must be considered when assessing shortfall exceptions under sub-section (4). The precise classes affected depend on the content of section 2(40)(e) (not stated in the document).
        • Minor drafting and punctuation differences:

          • Certain commas, full stops and phrase orders differ (e.g., full stop after ".." in Bill sub-section (3)).
          Practical impact: These are drafting refinements with negligible legal effect; the Act's final wording should govern application.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers required to pay advance tax must align instalment payments with the stated percentages and dates; failure risks interest at 3% for interim shortfalls and 1% for the final shortfall. Particular attention is required where significant items of income (capital gains, late dividends, first-time business income) arise late in the year-sub-section (4) provides relief only if tax on those items is paid in full by remaining instalments or by 31 March.
        • Computation clarity: The Act's articulation of "tax due on the returned income" with explicit list of reductions and the new detailed references to section 206 sub-clauses provides clearer guidance on computing the instalment percentages; practitioners should ensure tax credits/deductions referenced are correctly applied when calculating the base.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: To substantiate exclusions under sub-section (4), taxpayers should maintain records showing the source and timing of late-arising incomes and proof of tax paid on those incomes in later instalments or by 31 March. For reliance on safe-harbour thresholds (sub-section (2)), contemporaneous payment records are essential.

        Key Takeaways

        • Section 425 imposes interest on shortfalls in advance tax instalments tied to specified instalment percentages and due dates (15 June, 15 September, 15 December, 15 March).
        • Interest rates are modest: 3% on shortfalls for the first three instalments and 1% for the final instalment; a 1% simple interest applies for certain assessees under sub-section (3).
        • Safe-harbour thresholds (12% by 15 June; 36% by 15 September) can eliminate interest liability under sub-section (1) if met.
        • Shortfalls attributable to specified late-arising incomes (capital gains; certain incomes u/s 2(49)(n); first-time business/profession profits; dividend income) are exempt from interest provided tax on those incomes is paid in full in later instalments or by 31 March.
        • The Act clarifies computation of "tax due on the returned income" with detailed reductions (TDS/TCS, reliefs u/ss 157/159, section 160 deductions and specified section 206 credits).
        • The Act adds a definition narrowing the meaning of "dividend" for this section by excluding section 2(40)(e), which may affect treatment of certain receipts.
        • Where the Bill differed, the Act finalises more precise cross-references and a temporal phrasing for shortfalls; practitioners should follow the Act's text for administration.

        Full Text:

        Section 425 Interest for deferment of advance tax

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax