“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

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

ITA 56/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje

Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

case and law Rs.3,00,806/- applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234D of the Act, and recovering interest u/s 244A of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Dow Agro Sciences India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14 (1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal are disposed of as infructuous

ITA 1234/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sixty Days Prior To “The Timeline For The Assessment Order, It Is Implied That Such Order Must Precede 31 December By Not Less Than Sixty Days.”

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

pertaining to the transfer pricing issues raised in the appeal are disposed of as infructuous. Ground No. 19 pertaining to interest under Section 234B is disposed of as being consequential, while Ground No. 20 pertaining to claim of deduction in respect of education cess under Section

M/S. B B Jewellers and Finance Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 68

alia, on the Quantum, Period, Rate and method on which it has been calculated. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 ITA No.557/Bang/2022. M/s.B.B.Jewellers and Finance Private Limited. 11. The appellant craves

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Intl Tax) -2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 431/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 2.9. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant.” 3. Learned representatives fairly

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR

Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

subject to withholding tax provisions under the Act. 19. Consequently, the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 5 of 28 IT(TP)A No. 711/Bang/2017 That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter

The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 852/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 154Section 234BSection 244A

assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to charge the interest under section 234B for A.Y. 2012-13 till 30.03.2015. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-53, Mumbai

ITA 515/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 154Section 234BSection 244A

Estate of Late Shri Ramnikalla Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3771/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane

Section 132Section 153ASection 168Section 234BSection 69A

proceedings under Section 153A of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. It is submitted that the Appellant is not liable to pay interest under Section 234B of the Act. The appellant reserves

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

income was filed before due date of filing of return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act 28. erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act Initiation of penalty proceedings ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 16. On the facts and in the circumstances the Learned AO erred in leving interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 13,06,39,020. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3355/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Section 92C

account of disallowance of excess depreciation on software expense in AY 2013-14, for the computation of depreciation for the subject year. 28. Interest under section 234B of the Act: The Learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature

Oocl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2001/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244A

learned AO erred in levying interest amounting to Rs. 85,726 under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that levy of interest under section 234B of the Act be deleted.” 3. Ground no.1 is general in nature and therefore, need no separate adjudication. OOCL Logistics (India ... purpose. OOCL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2001/Mum./2015 19. Ground no. 7 raised in assessee’s appeal is pertaining to levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no. 7 is allowed for statistical purpose. 20. The assessee has also filed

Zodiac Maritime Agencies India P. Ld., Mumbai vs. National E-Assesment Centre (Neac), Delhi

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234Section 234BSection 92C

Grounds no.1 and 2 are general in nature and therefore, need no separate adjudication. 14. Ground no.3, is pertaining to levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, ground no.3, is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Insofar as ground no. 4 raised

Kantilal Jain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

appellant is entitled to claim the entire credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 1,21,659. Levy of consequential interest under sections 234B and 234C 4. 4.1. The learned DCIT, CPC has erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B and under section 234C ... amounting to Rs. 87,090 and Rs.16,979 respectively. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, levy of consequential interest under section 234B and under section 234C is incorrect. The appellant denies its liability to pay the consequential interest under section 234B and under section 234C. Prayer

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

inserted explanation 4 in Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is not applicable while applying Section 40(a)(i) of the Act; Interest under Section 234B of the Act 16. erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act; Interest under Section 234D ... raised in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 24. Grounds No. 16 and 17 pertains to levy of interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, the said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 25. Ground no. 18 raised in assessee

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 69A

which has not been rebutted by the revenue, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies herself to pay interest under section 234B of Rs. 3,62,571/- and under section 234D of Rs.1,944/- in view of the fact there is no additional liability

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

granting the full credit for tax deducted at source under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. Ground 7: Erroneous computation of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act The learned AO erred in computing consequential interest under section 2348 of the Act as well as consequential interest ... general in nature and same needs no separate adjudication. 14. Ground No. 7 raised in assessee’s appeal is pertaining to computation of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, which is Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. ITA no.5129/Mum./2017 consequential in nature. Thus, ground

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 234BSection 40A(2)

after sales services fees. IT(TP)A No.588/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 12 OTHER GROUND 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest under section 234B. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B is not leviable. The Appellant denies its liability to pay interest ... with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same may be upheld. Other Ground. (3) The LdCIT(A) has erred in confirming interest under section 234B. Submission: Charging of interest u/s 234B is consequential in nature and it is automatic and mandatory and it is as per specific provisions

G.F. Reality Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 5460/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvam.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 43C

accounting and in Asst. year 2015-16 is not even started. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under