“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

Morparia and Ranka Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2786/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Morparia & Ranka Ito 17(2)(3), Mumbai Construction Co. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Office No.307, 3Rd Floor, 400023 Gundecha Chamber, Nagindas Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai 400023 Pan: Aabfm0391D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Revenue : Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai- 28/10833/2016-17 Dated 15.04.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Made Of Rs.56500000/- Under Section 28(Iv) Of The Act Which Represents Amount Received & Now Repayable To M/S Crb Capital Market Ltd On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.07.2014 reporting total income

Sanjeev Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 20, Delhi

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

ITA 130/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69A

unjustified since the return of income for AY 2019-20 was filed on the due date i.e. 31.10.2019. Further, it was submitted that interest u/s 234B was wrongly charged in this case for the reasons that the cash amount of Rs.30,80,000/- seized on 27.11.2018 was in the custody ... locker and therefore, the same should have been adjusted by the AO on 21.04.2021, when he passed the assessment order and no interest u/s 234B should have been charged. In this regard, the assessee relied upon following case laws:- i. ACIT vs Narendra N. Thacker (IT(SS)A No.01/Kol/2012

Sanjay S Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matru Mandir

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4399/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 250Section 68

Thus, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of natural justice 5. The Ld. ITO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act. 6. The grounds of appeal raised are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 2. The assessee is an individual

Aasan Corporate Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT(6)(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5524/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash (CIT - DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

allowed on statistical purposes. 19. In ground no. XI, it is stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that in consequence to the aforesaid grounds, the AO be directed to delete or appropriately reduce the disallowance ... u/s 234B of the Act. 20. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the ground holding that interest u/s 234B being mandatory and automatic the AO was justified in levying the same. The ld.AR has admitted that the ground is consequential in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to adjudicate

Sri. Vikram Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

ITA 2170/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 54Section 90

Officer. Ward - 2(1), International Taxation, Bangalore since the Appellant was a Non-Resident. 19. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. Page 5 of 19 20. In view of the above

Prasanth Sunil Kumar Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 6725/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 2303/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 274Section 69

null and void. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of Interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.2303/Mum/2025 are as under: “1. On the facts

Prasanth Sunil Kumar Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 6725/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 274Section 69

Chandra Sekhar Pendurthi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 560/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.560/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Chandra Sekhar Pendurthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(3) Pan:Amopp4019L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T Rama Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri T Rama Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Chandra Sekhar Pendurithi 3. The only grievance of the assessee is regarding the levy of interest u/s 234A and wrong calculation of interest u/s 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied the interest u/s 234A ... outcome of the order of the learned CIT (A) and therefore, there is a mistake in calculation of the interest u/s 234B of the Act. He has referred the giving effect order placed at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer

Manoj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3172/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69Section 69A

quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in charging interest u/s 234B. The action of the authorities is wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed. 3. The appellant craves the right

Manojbhai Parsottambhai Poriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1731/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1731/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Manojbhai Parsottambhai V/S. Ito – 42(1)(3), Poriya बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Flat No. 602, 6Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Thakkar Plaza, Kandivali East, Maharashtra-400051 West, Maharashtra- 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amspp6898B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9 CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

assessee are allowed. Shri Yogesh P Thakkar 12. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 13. The Ground No. 4 raised ... Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 17. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which would be consequential in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 18. The Ground No. 4 raised

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

against Rs.4,84,854/-". We request your Honour to very kindly direct the learned AO to grant consequential relief in charging interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 8 General ground.” 12. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

total income. The ground no. 2,3 and 4 are allowed. 07. The issue raised in ground no.6, is against the charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act which are consequential and are not required to be adjudicated at this stage. ITA No.610/KOL/2024

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous calculation of interest u/s 234B of the Act. That on facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as in facts in computing the interest u/s 234B

K.N.Krishnamurthy, Mumbai vs. Mum-W-(251)(93), Bengaluru

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran UnavekarFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy

Section 234B

failure to deposit Advance tax quarterly for interest income to be accrued from Savings Bank accounts. Therefore, levy 2 K.N. Krishnamurthy of interest u/s 234B and 234C for failure to deposit Advance Tax towards interest income credited in savings Bank accounts is perhaps done without application of mind

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 757/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

wishes to cross object on the following ground: 1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the calculation of interest u/s 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,07,29,545 till the date of rectification order under consideration instead of the date of regular assessment ... applicable to it in the earlier years. It is submitted it be so held now. 5. The NFAC has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B is chargeable on assessed tax as increased in order u/s 154 while adjudicating appellant's ground that the interest u/s 234B needs

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 756/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 755/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

applicable to it in the earlier years. It is submitted it be so held now. 5. The NFAC has erred in holding that interest u/s 234B is chargeable on assessed tax as increased in order u/s 154 while adjudicating appellant's ground that the interest u/s 234B needs