“interest under section 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,475 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest under section 234B is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81), cited in 1,183 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest under section 234B

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court

452

citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court

422

citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.

55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court

273

citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.

373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court

199

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

Karanvir Singh Gossal v. CIT

349 ITR 692 · 2012 · Supreme Court

158

citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision establishes principles or grounds for seeking a waiver of mandatory interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC

313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court

144

citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

80P(2)(d) of the Act. In Kaliandas Udyag Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO

94 Taxmann.com 15 · 2018 · ITAT

130

citing judgments

A co-operative society, even if it is a co-operative bank whose general deduction under Section 80P is restricted by Section 80P(4), can still claim a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income derived from its investments held with another co-operative society, as it retains its identity as a co-operative society.

Judgments citing interest under section 234B

Anglo Eastern Institutes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrianglo Eastern Institutes V/S. Cit(A)/Nfac, बनाम Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Unit No. 102, Mezzaniene Floor, Leela Business Park, Marol, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Maharashtra-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcca3508K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 71

with income under the head house property as per section 71(B) of the Act. 3. Ground No. 3 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act The Ld. AO has erred in law and in fact, in levying interest under section 2348B of the Act. 4. Ground

DCIT., (Internation Taxation)-2, Hyderabad vs. Virtusa International B V, Netherland

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 727/HYD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Nidhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

permanent establishment in India - Assessing Officer computed taxable income by attributing some percentage of sale consideration as profits to PE and interest under section 234B for failure to pay advance tax was levied - High Court by impugned order held that since assessee was a non-resident company, entire ... there was no question of payment of advance tax by assessee, and therefore, it would not be permissible for revenue to charge any interest under section 234B from assessee - Supreme Court by impugned order dismissed SLP against said order - Whether review petition was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

incorrect presumptions and not justified in law. Consequential Grounds 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levying of consequential interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified

Spafi-Societe De Participations Financieres Et Industrielles, France vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2072/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akram khan / Ms. SiyaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

interest under section 234A of Rs. 1,80,80,410/-. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of Rs. 7,95,53,804/-. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of France ... participations Financeres Et Industrielles section 234A of Rs. 1,80,80,410/- should be deleted. Further assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of Rs. 7,95,53,804/-. The assessee’s contention has been that the liability for interest should have been consequential to non-grant

Ohm Juniper Longterm Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation -2(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2722/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Ohm Juniper Longterm Vs. Dcit, Fund Ltd, International Taxation- 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, 2(22)(2), 24 Cybercity, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacco2383D

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 234CSection 90(2)

income considered for computation of taxes, without any discussion on the same in assessment order. 3. GROUND NO. IV - ERRONEOUS LEVY OF CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & SECTION 234C 3.1 On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DRP and DCIT has erred in levying consequential interest under Section

Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed of statistical purposes

ITA 562/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

trade receivables 8.1 Imputation of interest on trade receivables should be restricted up to 31 March 2017. Ground No. 9: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act 9.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... erred in computing consequential interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, we note that

M/S. Abz Fujitsu General Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1711/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. (Vice President), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddppaji, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145ASection 154Section 234BSection 37

234B of Rs. 2,41,05,711/- and 234C of Rs. 57,96,851/-. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act computed in excess of the sum reported in return of income is not leviable and incorrect. The Appellant denies ... liability to pay interest under section 234B & 234C. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

Pankaj Dhandharia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 741/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm

Section 142ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50(2)(vi)Section 500Section 56(2)(vii)

reopening of the assessment and on the merits of the addition. Ground number 16 is with respect to the levy of interest under section 234B of the act, which is consequential in nature, no arguments are advanced, therefore same is dismissed. Similarly ground number 17 of the appeal is with

Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 4036/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

without any basis and the same may be deleted. Khanna Industrial Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are not leviable. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete, rescind or withdraw ... raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground no.4 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to the levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.4 needs no separate adjudication. 19. In the result

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1) Now DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr DR

Section 139Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 199Section 206CSection 244ASection 244A(1)

shortfall in payment on tax vis-a-vis the tax finally due on the assessed income, the assessee is liable to pay interest under section 234B of the Act. Conversely, where the Revenue makes a high-pitched assessment which is subsequently reduced/modified in appeal, any payment of taxes made, which

Kreuz Subsea Technologies Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle-2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1403/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Subsea Technologies Vs. Acit, Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Circle- International Taxation 10, Science Centre Road, -2(1)(2), Block 1, 01-12, Bestway New Delhi Centre, Singapore Pan: Aafck7070C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 12.04.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2019-20 In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp). 2. When The Appeal Was Called Out None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even, There Is No Application By The Assessee Seeking Ay: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270A

October 2018 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 41,96,281. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Vengali Abdul Khader, Pattambi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vengali Abdul Khader Acit, Central Circle Vilayur West, Poottapalam Aayakr Bahvan, S.T. Nagar Vs. Pattambi 679309 Shaktanthampural Nagar [Pan: Afupa3774J] Thrissur - 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132BSection 139Section 234ASection 234B

only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the business of wholesale trading

Mahalaxmi Asphalt Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1291/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 80I

been physically filed and accordingly delay in filing the same shall be condoned by observing principle of natural justice. 5. Charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C is unjustifiable.” 3. The assessee is a Company and filed the return of income on 29.12.2020 thereby declaring total income of Rs.25

Northern Operating Services Private Limited, Argon South Tower vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1565/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Motwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 80G

Incorrect levy of interest 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in computing the interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 28,246. D. Penalty Proceedings 8.On the facts and in the circumstances the Learned AO erred in initiating

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra Airport Tax- 3(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai 12Th Floor,World Trade Centre, Vs. Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and on facts levying / charging interest under section 234B, 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it has also been wrongly worked out. 9) That on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7497/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 57

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground No

ITA 294/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat