“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

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

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 734/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2010-11

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

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

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 733/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2010-11

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 1059/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Dy.CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 1052/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Shri Navinchandra N. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 869/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dzouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(2)Section 69

That the Hon'ble CIT (appeals) and learned AO erred in fact and in law in charging interest u/s 234B & C of the Act. 6. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s

Ratnaravi Metal Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ofiicer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble1.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272ASection 69A

Income Tax Act,1961. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in leaving interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961.” At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the affidavit of Sureshkumar Sanghvi

B N Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1303/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleb.N. Industries Dcit – Circle – 41(4)(1) Kautilyabhavan, G-Block 52/53, Samita Complex Bkc, Bandrakurla Complex Andheri Kurla Road Vs Bandra (East) – 400051 Sakinaka, Andheri (East) -400072 Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Aabfb8956B (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhica Department Represented By : Shri Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr.Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 B.N. Industries Ground 5. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7317/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward 6(3), Vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Room No. 376A, C.R. Ltd. Building, I.P. Estate, 51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi – 5 (Pan: Aadcc3358B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya: Am This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Following Grounds:- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 2,85,00,000/- Received By The Assesee Company As Unexplained Cash Credit. Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Prove The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions As Per Judgement Of Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Where It Was Held That Mere Filing Of Pan No.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

paper book of the assessee. This return was finally assessed at Rs 2,85,00,000/- on 19/03/2014 charging interest u/s 234B only. It is clear that the assessee has discharged onus u/s 147 read with 139(4). II. Hence service of the notice is an impossibility in the given

Darshi A. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Intl. Taxation), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1857/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Darshi A Shah The Ito 17, Haveli Apartment, Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), Vs. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bzwps8361J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr 22/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 30/08/2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017-18 On 22.07.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,61,850/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny To Examine The Cash Deposits In The Bank Account. In The Course Of Assessment, No Compliance Was Made By The Assessee. Therefore, The Assessment Was Completed Ex-Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) On 25.11.2019 At Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234BSection 271ASection 69A

closing cash balance has been accepted by revenue in A.Y. 2016-17. (4) Initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC is unjustified. (5) Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C are unjustified.” 5. All the grounds taken by the assessee pertain to addition of Rs.13,00,000/- made u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kismet Exports and Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5520/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kismet Exports & Tax-4(3)(1) Investments Pvt Ltd. 649 Aayakar Bhavan M K Road Vs. C-1/5, Sarathi Chs, Khira Mumbai-400020 Nagar, S.V.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 Pan No. Aacck 2895 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

from other sources of Rs.49,21,543/- while computing income from business & profession. Grounds of Appeal No. 3: The Learned AO has charged interest u/s. 234B of Rs.2,10,12,842/-. The Appellant submits that the Learned AO be directed to re-calculate the interest chargeable u/s. 234B. The Appellant ... submits that while calculating interest u/s. 234B the AO has not calculated the interest u/s. 234B on assessed tax as defined vide explanation 1 to section 234B. The Appellant submits the learned AO be directed to calculate interest u/s 234B….. 4. It is seen that while passing the order giving

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 7252/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

Bravura Solutions India LLP, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 3944/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshbravura Solutions India Llp, Vs. Assessment Unit, P-24, Green Park Extension, Income Tax New Delhi-110016 Department, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfb3843C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

Accordingly, the ld AO is directed to decide the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is settled that the same has to be charged

Mr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalmr. Viren Rohitkumar Shah, 02/009 Om Heera Pana Mall, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400102 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaqps2809B V/S

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

circumstances of the case. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. On the facts and circumstances

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 250Section 253(5)

disallowed the claim of foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.6,62,622/- and raised a demand of Rs.7,75,600/-by levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. As submitted by the ld. A.R., the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that for claiming foreign tax credit

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

basis and imputing interest on credit period provided for the invoices raised relating to provision of services. CORPORATE TAX ISSUES 12) Levy of interest u/s 234B on the TP adjustment. 13) Levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act. 14) Initiating proceedings u/s 271AA and 271BA ... 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 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,89,21,854 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 16. Erroneous calculation of Interest u/s

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Aditya Somani, Hooghly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1897/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 6Section 90

claimed in the return of income and wrongly raised a demand of INR 38,490/-. He has also challenged the levying of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The Ld. A.R has also cited several judicial pronouncements which is as under: i) Rahul Anand vs. ADIT