“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

Mrs. Kather Maher, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the relevant Ground No

ITA 689/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

adjudicate the Ground no. 4 raised in the appeal memorandum filed before the CIT(A) and thereby indirectly confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2017-18, the return

Nitin Verma L/H of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rohtak

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

ITA 3530/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 48

Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest u/s 3 Nitin Verma 234A of the Act, interest u/s 234B of the Act and interest of u/s 234C of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case

Suresh Chandra Sadh, New Delhi vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 178/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

held accordingly. 4. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in charging interest u/s 234B & 234D at Rs. Rs. 17,83,656/- & Rs. 1,64,753 respectively 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual and filed ... u/s 68 of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is sustained. 7. Ground no.4 is against the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act at Rs.17,83,656/- and Rs.1,64,753/- respectively. This ground is interest as per law. Accordingly, this ground

Mehi Power Transformers, Indore vs. DCIT-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 57/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimehi Power Transformers, Dcit-4(1), बनाम/ 74-J Industrial Estate, Indore Vs. Polo Ground, Indore (Pan: Aacfm0235H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 253Section 68

date u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. That Ld. CIT has erred in justifying the action of A.O. for charging interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 502416 from the assessee ignoring the fact that assessee has deposited pre-paid taxes more than 90% of the tax payable

Ramakrishna Tarangambaoi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 565/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.565/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Ramakrishna Vs. Dy.Cit Tarangambaoi Circle 13 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aawpt6919K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Srikanth Sirigadi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. Srikanth SirigadiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

Ramakrishna Tarangambaoi 3. The only grievance raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding wrong computation of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has paid the entire tax by filing the updated return of income as on 1/7/2023 ... whereas the Assessing Officer has computed interest u/s 234B for the entire period. He has referred to page 8 of the order passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act and submitted that the CPC has mentioned in the order itself that the entire tax was paid

Sangeeta Ratilal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)

Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)

appeals that the impugned demand of Rs. 5,10,760/- raised under section 156 is incorrect and liable to be deleted. Ground no.2 : Interest u/s 234B 1. In accordance with grounds no.1, the appellant requests that interest levied u/s 2348 should be NIL instead of the amounts mentioned

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 519/Mum/2025 is dismissed

ITA 1074/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, ARFor Respondent: 24.06.2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 69A

Therefore, the disallowance /addition made by the AO shall be deleted. 4. The AO and DRP erred in charging the interest u/s 234B of the Act. 5. The AO and DRP erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed

Deepanshu Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), C. R. Building

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1730/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 234BSection 40

aforesaid EDC payment. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234D, being consequential in nature. That the appellant craves to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated here

Amit Upadhyay, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Amit Upadhyay Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.101, Prem Co. Ward-1(5), Pvt. Society Sector- Faridabad 21C, Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abepu0188Q

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

assessee are allowed. Ground no. 5 is challenging the chargeability u/s 234B and 234C of 9. the Act. With regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act, the same is consequential. With regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is very well settled

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

these grounds of appeal become academic in nature, and need no further adjudication. 5.3 Ground of Appeal No. S is regarding charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is consequential in nature. The AO shall charge the Interest as per law. 5.4 Ground

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Digvijay Finlease Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1121/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 234BSection 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of A.O. for levying interest u/s 234B & 234C. 4. That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated here-in-above

Fil India Business & Research Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), C.R Building, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 920Section 92CSection 92C(3)

assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground of Appeal No.4 is with regard to the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C. In this regard, the assessee submitted that it is entered into Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT which has resulted into enhanced income and thus additional ... filing the modified return of income, the utility provided by the Govt. e-filing portal was taken wherein as per the utility provided interest u/s 234B and 234C is charged on modified income. The Ld. AR submitted that in terms of APA entered by the appellant with CBDT, it does

Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt.Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 205/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

assessee are partly allowed. Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 12. The ground of appeal no. 8 is regarding charging of interest u/s 234B which is consequential in nature and the AO is directed to charge interest as per law on the tax on the income computed after giving

Rohit Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1209/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

when detailed replies were submitted. 13. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C and such interest ought to be deleted. 14. That the computation of income and calculation of tax thereon made

Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

beyond jurisdiction. 24. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act. 25. that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

Mcleod Russel India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 458/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

business loss at Rs(-) 43,90,86,432. 11. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in computing interest u/s 234B at Rs 5,95,96,264/- and interest u/s 234C at Rs 1,02,41,996/-. Mecleod Russel India Ltd. 12. The Appellant craves ... this adjudication order. In result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Ground No. 11 protests the charge of interest u/s 234B at Rs. 5,95,96,264/- and interest u/s 234C at Rs. 1,02,41,996/-. We find that the charging of interest would

Mecleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

M/S Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7779/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271G

crores Ground no 6 to 11 TP grounds Ground no 12 Penalty u/s 271G Ground no 13 Levy of interest u/s 234B Ground no. 14 Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) Additional GOA Additional Grounds 1 & 2 Filed on 06 March 2020 (basis Vendata) Additional Grounds filed