Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 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

Acts Income Tax