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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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