Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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