“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

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. S Praveena, CIT(DRP-2)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 40Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

company. 5. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the order of the learned Assessing Officer in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above

M/S Playsimple Games Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/BANG/2019[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

under section 40(a)(i) should be restricted to 30 percent on the basis of non-discrimination clause of the Treaties. Interest under section 234B and 234C 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore has erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234D amounting ... respectively. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B and 234D is not Page 3 of 9 leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234D. Prayer 8. In the view of above and other grounds to be adducted

Sri. Karur Jayaprakash, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 101/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepika, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

submitted by the assessee. 6. Interest levied under section 234B of the Act The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. Interest levied under section 234D of the Act The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest

Atos Information Technology Hk Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7205/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act 4 Atos Information Technology HK Limited amounting to Rs. 5,83,38,488 without appreciating that the entire income ... appeals in respect of assessment year 2006-07 against original assessment. 7.2 The other issues raised in ITA No. 6888/Mum/2011 regarding leviability of interest under section 234B which was admitted to be consequential and with a rider that assessee has liberty to show before AO why it is not liable

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

disallowing the impugned payment is incorrect, contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. Levy of interest under section 234B 5.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B. On facts and circumstances of the case ... applicable, interest under section 234B is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B. 6. Prayer 6.1. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant company prays that the order passed by the learned Commissioner

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

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

Interest on resulting adjustment under section 234B of the Act: Rs. 3,68,94,858 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act consequent to the above adjustments. 13. Calculation of Interest on resulting adjustment under section 234D

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

appellant of INR 1,18,85,969. Other grounds 9.1 The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 8 M/s. Red Hat India Private Limited 9.2 The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under ... ground No.8.1 is decided for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee. Ground No.9.1 87. The assessee has challenged the levying of interest under section 234B of the Act. Since this ground is consequential in nature, the AO is directed to deal with the issue in accordance with

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

statistical purposes, the third ground of appeal is treated as allowed. V. 4.3 The fourth ground of appeal challenging the levy of interest under section 234B of the IT Act is consequential in nature and the AO is directed to recalculate the interest chargeable under this section after giving effect

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

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

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

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

Sicot India Foundation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 4328/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At, The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon. Ita'I To Decide This Appeal According To Law.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

under section 234A. 4. On the facts and in law, the learned Dy. Commissioner of income-tax- CPC, Bangalore had erred in charging interest under section 234B at Rs.63,025 as against Rs. Nil. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought not to have charged any interest

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

return and accordingly the interest levied for 30 months was totally unjustified, uncalled for and ought to have been deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 9,70,25,626/- levied by the Ld. AO for short fall in the settlement application. 11. The appellant craves leave ... return and accordingly the interest levied for 99 months is totally unjustified uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 10. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 6,03,49,480/- levied for short fall in payment of advance tax for 102 months was legally incorrect as under

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

income. 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act.” 13. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and / or' modify any of the grounds of appeal

L& T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venure, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 669/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint The Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Income Tax, Range 12(2), Room No. 114, 1 St Floor, Taxation Department, L&T Vs. House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal0284E

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 158ASection 234B

disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹68,17,413/- being reimbursement of expenses of Hochtief A.G. Germany. 8. The levy of interest under section 234B. The appellant denies its liability in respect of the same.” L& T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture; AY 06-07 2. The only issue

Kumar Engineering Works, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2919/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Kumar Engineering Works, Vs Acit, B-38, Gt Karnal Road, Circle-20(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfk6388K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

income of the Appellant. 6. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 6. Ground No.1

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

that the appellant has fully disclosed all the facts in the return of income and that the appellant has not concealed income. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. The same is consequential in nature