“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

holding that issue is covered by the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Assessee's own case. 13. Levy of interest under section 234B — INR 7,15,88,232 13.1 The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential to additions made

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

light of the above jurisdictional ITAT's decision. 8.2 Decision:- So far as the fifth ground of appeal, challenging the charging of interest under section 234B & 234C, is concerned, I'm not in agreement with the contention of the appellant. Even though the scheme of merger has been approved ... have been estimated at the time of payment of advance tax. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that the AO has correctly charged interest under section 234B & 234C of the IT Act because the appellant has failed to prove that merged entities could not have anticipated the (8197 advance

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

otherwise fail the test of comparability and filters as applied by the learned TPO. 20. That the learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 7,02,13,338.” 6. The assessee has filed multiple paper books enclosing therein the TP study

Smt. Raju Paruthi, L/R of Late Sri. Vinod Kumar Paruthi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 251Section 68

Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234B, 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted Smt. Raju Paruthi, Bengaluru Page

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

actions of the learned TPO/ learned AO. 9. Other grounds 9.1. The AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. Relief 10. 10.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

possible profit element at 12.5% on account of bogus purchases made as per information from sales-tax department and other ancillary ground being interest under sections 234B and 234C alongwith penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 3. There was delay in filing the appeal. The managing ... rate as that of the genuine purchases after giving opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Further, we hold that levy of interest under section 234B and 234C are consequential and initiation of penalty under section 271(1(c) is premature. 10. Since we have decided the appeal

M/S. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Private Limited ( Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 84/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 84/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Pvt. Ltd.), The Income-Tax The Masterpiece, Officer, Level 5, Golf Course Road, Ward – 11(1), Sector – 54, Bangalore. Vs. Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana. Pan: Aaeca8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 05.11.2011 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore [‘Ld. Cit(A)'] & The Learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Ld. Ao') To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Are Bad In Law, Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 3Section 92C

time of complying with the TP documentation requirements. General Grounds 5. The consequential relief is to be granted in computation of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The interest under section 244A of the Act is consequential in nature and therefore if subsequently the disallowance stands

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 228/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

That, on the facts and in light of provisions of the law, the CPC and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act in excess of amount calculated as per the return of income filed by the Company. (Tax effect

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No. 10.4 - The Learned AO has erred in law and facts in computing the interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. 13.1 Ground No. 10.5 - The learned AO has erred in law and on fact, in initiating penalty proceedings

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli , CIT (DR)

Section 92C

also erred in determining the royalty rate at .17% on sales, without giving any logical basis for the same. Corporate tax 18. Interest under section 234B of the Act a) The learned AU erred in levying interest under section 234B ... final assessment order. b) In light of the contentions in the aforesaid grounds, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act in relation to such adjustments. c) Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

addition made needs to be deleted in the interest of equity and justice. a) The appellant denies himself liable to be levied interest under section 234B of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method

Shri V Narayana Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(4), Bangalore vs. Shri Narayana Venkatarama Reddy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA

Section 234B

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

though Company has filed the return of income within due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 9. The levy of interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. 3. The issues raised in this appeal, as learned representatives fairly agree, are covered in favour

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 233/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

appeal, the learned AO has erred by not recomputing deduction under section 10AA of the Act considering the assessed total income. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 21. The Learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B which is consequential to the above grounds

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

resident, 2.7. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 2.8. The 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. The appellant craves

Chandresh Cabels Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2022[2019-202]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-202

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

no.1 raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is allowed. 8. As regards ground no.2, Assessing Officer is directed to compute the interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, in accordance with law, after granting proper credit of the prepaid taxes. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised in assessee