“interest u/s 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,217 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest u/s 234B is DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC (313 ITR 187), cited in 144 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest u/s 234B

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.

CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd.

247 ITR 209 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Interest under sections 234A and 234B cannot be levied mechanically when there is a reasonable cause for delay in payment or response to notices.

27th Nov., 2001 and Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. Dy. CIT

72 ITD 415 · 2000 · ITAT

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B is not leviable if the entire income of the assessee is liable to tax deduction at source, irrespective of whether tax was actually deducted.

ACIT v. Hans Raj Gandhi

37 ITR 418 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to the adjustment of seized cash against their advance tax liability. Consequently, no interest under sections 234A or 234B can be charged if the department fails to respond to the assessee's request for such an adjustment.

MBG Commodities (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

163 ITD 130 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B needs to be recalculated, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering judicial decisions.

CIT vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. (2004) and CIT v. Reading and Bates Exploration Co.

278 ITR 47 · Reported

citing judgments

Interest under section 234 cannot be levied if the employer fails to deduct tax at source, as the employee should not be faulted for the employer's default.

Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income

18 SCC 353 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessment made in the name of a company that has been amalgamated and dissolved is null and void.

Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tar, (2011 SCC OnLine Del), CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd.

2014 SCC OnLine DEL 7678 · 2014 · Reported

citing judgments

The court does not interfere with impugned judgments previously passed by the High Court in cases dealing with various aspects of income tax law.

Judgments citing interest u/s 234B

Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2557/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

Denial of credit of tax deducted at source (38,24,758 – 18,66,870) | 19,57,888/- | | Excess levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C | 9,40,064/- | Brief facts on denial of relief u/s 90 of the Act as submitted by the assessee are: Page ... passed by the AO on 24/05/2023 allowing the credit of tax deducted at source. Brief facts on excess levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as submitted by the assessee are: 3.7 The AO while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act levied

Smt Veena Vijay Murkibhavi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4085/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234BSection 45Section 54Section 56

Residential House exempt under Section 54 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 4085/Mum/2025 2 3) The learned CIT (Appeals), has confirmed charging of interest u/s 234B of Rs. 15, 33,072/-.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assesse filed her return of income on 31/07/2009 declaring

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

filed income tax return within due date of filing of ITR. Therefore no interest u/s 234A is chargeable to the assessee. 6.3 Interest u/s 234B is chargeable for default in payment of advance tax. On the basis of the submissions above, your honour will find that the addition made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

unexplained monies. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the charging of Interest u/s 234B and initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act by the Ld Assessing Officer. The appellant craves leave to add, amend ... appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the charge and computation of the interest u/s 234B of the Act. However the appellant has not submitted the calculation sheet done by the Id. AO which has been challenged in appeal. Thus

The Shukan Lotus Cooperative Housing Service Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 589/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

authorities is required to be quashed as CPC acted beyond the power given u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C unjustified.” The Shukan Lotus Cooperative Housing Service Society Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case

Najam Uz Zaman Khan, Church Road, Lower Bazar vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/RAN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 234Section 234BSection 69A

channel or cash deposit out of cash withdrawals. As such the addition made is un justified, illegal and incorrect. 4. 234B Whether the interest u/s 234B should have been charged on returned income and not on assessed income. For that Ld. AO was not justified in giving direction for charging

Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Vs. Ito, 302, Shri Hari Appartment, Piplod Ward – 1(3)(1), Road Near Lancer Army School, Surat Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bwxpb3655C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghasswala, 252 ITR 1 (SC) held that levy of interest is mandatory. The AO shall levy the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as per law after giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional ground of chargeability of interest u/s 234B & 234C for non payment of advance tax of MAT without considering the CBDT Circular No 13/2001 dated 9/11/2001. 57.1 The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment ... submitted that the assessee was assessed under the MAT provisions of the Act and it is a clear position that no interest u/s 234B & 234C is leviable if tax is payable u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions, prevailing at that point of time

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

charged to such interest on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii. The appellant denies itself to be charged to interest u/s 234B a sum of Rs. 25,58,568/- and 234C a sum of Rs. 94,027/- while computing the income under MAT provisions on the facts ... circumstances of the case. iii. The appellant denies itself to be charged to interest u/s 234B a sum of Rs. 34,96,340/- and 234C a sum of Rs. 5,83,410/- while computing the Page 6 of 24 income under MAT provisions on the facts and circumstances

Estate of Nalini Manilal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2412/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Estate Of Nalini Manilal, Ito 20(1)(1), 57, Naiman Bhavan, Vinay Shah Piramal Chambers, Vs. Marg, Nariman Point, S.O. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaae 0475 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Asif Karmali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, CA

Section 168Section 168(1)Section 168(1)(b)Section 168(2)

wrong calculation of Tax liability at MMR has resulted into iability at MMR has resulted into excess levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C amounting to Rs. excess levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C amounting to Rs. excess levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C amounting to Rs. 10,266/-. [B] Relief ... liability at MMR made on account of computing the tax liability at MMR Rate includin Rate including the excess levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C g the excess levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C instead of the normal slab rates of Income Tax as specified in Para instead

Asian Clousers Ltd( Since Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 7252/DEL/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Asian Closures Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.I.T (Since Amalgamated With Asian Circle 3(2) Consolidated Industries Ltd.) C.R. Building, 96Th Mile, Delhi Jaipur I.P. Estate, Highway, Village Bawal, New Delhi Distt. Rewari, Haryana

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

assessing officer is also not justified in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. That charging of the interest u/s 234B of the Act is highly excessive. Further charging of the interest for the period in which company was under liquidation and under the control ... allowed. 52. Ground No. 12, 13 and 14 pertaining to penalty proceedings u/s 271D and E of the Act and interest u/s 234B are consequential. 53. As regards the additional grounds, we find that there is sufficient force in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that post

Dice Districts India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3506/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dice Districts (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ito Ward 6(2)(1), 307-308, Midas, Sahar Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aaecd 2751 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharan Gandhi

Section 14ASection 234B

Dice Districts (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2 The Ld. AO has erred in levying 2 The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B/ 234C interest u/s 234B/ 234C of the Act. 3 3 3 The The The Ld. Ld. Ld. AO AO AO has has has erred erred erred

Feroze Naval Patch, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1269/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 140ASection 140BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234B(2)

perused. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act interest u/s 234B of the Act was levied at Rs. 8,27,421/- whereas the claim of the assessee is that the interest should have been levied

Vijaya Singh, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Patna, Bihar

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

ITA 519/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

under proviso to section 144(1) has been given. (7) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge of interest u/s 234B at Rs.11,49.462/- is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. The interest as charged is fit to be 4 Vijaya Singh deleted. In view ... jurisdictional high court, the interest u/s 234B is chargeable on income returned. (8) For that the appellant reserves her right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 5. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee

Shailendra Gala Navneet Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Diretor of Income Tax Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in assessment year

ITA 4355/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(1)

Ground No.4: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s Ground No.4: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s Ground No.4: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.6,552/ 234B amounting to Rs.6,552/- 1. The learned CIT(A) consequently erred in not deleting the 1. The learned ... incorrect, bad in law and hence the same may please be deleted. may please be deleted. Ground No.3: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s 234B and 3: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s 234B and 3: Incorrect levy of additional interest u/s 234B and 234C aggregating to Rs.3,417/ 234C

Shailendra Gala Navneet Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in assessment year

ITA 4354/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(1)

Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani, Jamnagar vs. The Assessement Unit NFAC Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

levying interest u/s 234A of the Act. 10. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act. 11. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, substitute, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,14,75,790/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D & Withdrawal of excess refund u/s 244A. ITNS 150 is part of this order. Notice u/s 274 read with Section

N K Infra Jv, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed in the order

ITA 3423/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) N K Infra Jv Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru / 6A, Siddhivayak Chambers, Vs Ito, Ward-41(1)(3), Mumbai R P Road, Bandra (East), Kautilya Bhavan C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400051. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan No. Aaean3277F] Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 254(1)

Total Income is below ₹50 lakhs. 2. Incorrect charging of surcharge resulted into a further increase in the tax liability due to interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income tax Act 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned