← All Phrases

“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
21
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
19
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
14
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
14
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
13
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
12
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
11
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

Exponential Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward -17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1115/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Bose Babu Alli, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234B

Intimation Order issued by him is time barred hence it is void ab initio. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in calculating interest u/s 234B & 234C without appreciating the facts of the case. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Intimation Order u/s

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1344/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

interest u/s 234C is chargeable for the default in payment of installment(s) / shortfall of advance tax payable by the assessee with relevant interest u/s 234B in case of default. The Ld.CIT(A) by the above decision on upholding the charging of interest u/s 234C, has indirectly asserting that ... assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 234B as the assessee had defaulted in payment of advance tax u/s 234B of the Act out of the total tax liability. 3. Further, the assessee had utterly failed to declare the income as well as the TDS deducted from the STCG

The Market Research Society of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5087/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 274

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Assessing Officer as well

Vijaya Credit Co Operative Socitey Limited, Belthangady vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 2048/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

appellant has not under- reported/misreported particulars of his income and therefore ought to be deleted. 13. The levy of interest U/s 234B is excessive and ought to be deleted. 14. Without prejudice, the tax assessed is excessive, unreasonable and is liable to be dropped. 15. In view of the above

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

234D. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B and 234D is not applicable. Even otherwise, the interest u/s 234B and 234D is excessive. 6. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B without appreciating the provisions of section 234B

Poonam Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 88/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 438Section 43B

order of the assessing officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 8. The learned assessing office has erred in levying the interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4 5. At the time of hearing, with regard to the issue of ESI/PF, the assessee has submitted

Surbhi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

claimed under section 40A(3). 6. Under the fact and circumstances of the case to the Ld. AO was not justified in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C, 7. That the appellant reserved his right to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date

Ajay Kumar Dua, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 61(1) - 12, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Dua, Vs. Pcit, B-3, Defence Colony, Circle-61(1)-12, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aajpd3532B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

directed to examine this aspect. 6 | P a g e The AO is also directed to examine if there is loss of interest u/s 234B of the Act, he should recover it after due verification. 10 The above fact clearly shows that AO had not made proper enquiry and verification

Lachman Das Bhatia Hingwala (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2271/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 292BSection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai. vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 557/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

appellant and allow the same. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that interest u/s 234B of the Act is chargeable only if there is a shortfall in the tax paid as compared to the assessed tax, after granting relief

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

appellant and allow the same. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that interest u/s 234B of the Act is chargeable only if there is a shortfall in the tax paid as compared to the assessed tax, after granting relief

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

appellant and allow the same. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that interest u/s 234B of the Act is chargeable only if there is a shortfall in the tax paid as compared to the assessed tax, after granting relief

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

appellant and allow the same. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits that interest u/s 234B of the Act is chargeable only if there is a shortfall in the tax paid as compared to the assessed tax, after granting relief

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4245/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming wrong charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and /or delete

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

F.M.Amin Co(Dashrath), Dashrath vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 30/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 158BSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 68

PERCENTAGE OF THE AMOUNT ADDED. THIS BEING GENUINE TRANSACTION THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION BE CANCELLED. 3) THE LEARNED A.O. HAS LEVIED INTEREST U/S 234B OF RS.6,20,796/- ND U/S 234C OF RS.12,759/- AND INTEREST U/S 234D OF RS.200/- TOTALLING RS.6,33,755/- THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED

Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, subject to the verification as mentioned

ITA 1511/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2023-24 Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 3A, St. George Terrace, Vs Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata-700022, West Bengal Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn8752B Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anup Singh, Ar Respondent By : Shri Supriya Pal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Addl/ Jt. Cit (A)” ) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2023-24 Dated 22.05.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Anup Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

same being within the due date specified u/s 139(3) of the Act. 6. Ground no.4, relating to the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act is consequential to the income determined after setting off the losses claimed and the Ld. AO is directed to recompute

Rahul Anand, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 295(1)Section 90

vide order dated 13.06.2021 mentioning that in the order u/s 154 of the Act there is no change in the computation of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as the same has been correctly computed while processing, thereby, inter- alia implying that the credit for FTC was denied