“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

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 408/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-4(4), 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400063. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-12(2)(1), Now Dy. 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Cit Central Circle-4(4), Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400063. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w SaurabhFor Respondent: 31/07/2024

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153C

upholding the action of AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in Rs. levying interest levying interest u/s 234B of the Act 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete The Appellant

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 407/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 234CSection 274Section 43C

r.w.s 271AAB(1A) of the Act be dropped. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 47,09,940/- and u/s 234C of Rs. 2,57,430/- of the Act. 3.1 The assessee also filed additional

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 405/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 274Section 43C

dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in Rs. levying interest u/s 234B of the Act 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing. 3. Briefly stated, facts

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 404/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh

Section 132Section 4

erred upholding the action of The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying AO in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 47,09,940/ interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 47,09,940/- and u/s 234C o and u/s 234C

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh

Section 132Section 4

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 402/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh

Section 132Section 4

Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward 1 4, Mumbai vs. J N Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 3573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Smt. Renu Jauhriito(Exemptions) Ward -14, Jn Tata Endowment Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, For The Higher Mtnl Telephone Exchange Education Of Indians, Buillding, Peddar Road, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mumbai -400026. House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaatc0085C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 260A

grounds of appeal 1 and 2 are allowed. 6.3 The appellant in its ground of appeal 3 has assailed the AO for charging interest u/s 234B. As the same is consequential the ground of appeal 3 is not being adjudicated upon. 6.4 The appellant in its ground of appeal

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1951/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody

Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

legislature prescribed for mandatory charging of simultaneously the legislature prescribed for mandatory charging of simultaneously the legislature prescribed for mandatory charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act for default in interest u/s 234B of the Act for default in payment of self-assessment tax assessment tax w.e.f. 01.04.1989 onwards

First Global Stock Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody

Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Aayekar Bhavan

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody

Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

Solutions Integrated Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2852/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

With respect to ground no.5.4, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and to levy interest u/s 234B of the Act as per law. 13. With respect to ground no.5.5, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and to levy interest u/s

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4420/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

amount of depreciation claim u/s 32 of the Act. (Ground Nos. 11,15 and 16 of the AM) 8. That the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. (Ground Nos. 17 and 18 of the AM) 9. That the levy of interest ... allowing the correct set off of unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. (G. No. 20 of the AM) 9. That the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. (Ground No. 21 of the AM) 10. That the levy of interest u/s 234C

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4419/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4418/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

Refreshment Product Service India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1787/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Refreshment Product Vs. Acit Service India Private Circle – 19 (1) Limited, B-91, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aagcr4112D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advocate Sh. Aditya Rathore, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234B

This results in taxing the same amount to twice which is against the basic principles of taxation. Ground no. 4-Inadvertent levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred

Ajay Paliwal, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1243/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1243/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Ajay Paliwal, Paliwal Nagar, G.T Road, Panipat, Haryana 132103 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Acwpp-2890-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent C.R Building, Ito, I.P Estate, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Primarily Raised Two Issues. In Ground No. 1 Of Appeal The Assessee Has Assailed The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer (Ao) & In Ground No. 2 To 5 Of Appeal The Assessee Has Assailed Addition Of Rs 21,00,000/- U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act').

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

thus allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid. 14. In ground no. 6 of appeal, the assessee has assailed charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Charging of interest under the aforesaid section is mandatory and consequential; hence, ground no. 6 of appeal is dismissed being

Makevale Acrylics Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC Bengaluru Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.566/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru बनाम/ 372, 373, 374, 1,2 Sankarda Present Jurisdiction - Bhadarwa Road The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), V/S. At Moxi, Tal.Savli, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara- 391 780 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcm 2737 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13/11/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction The Dcit, Circle-2(1)1A) Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 13. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 234C

Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore)Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2505/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(1)Section 196DSection 208Section 234BSection 234C

u/s 143(1) of the Act, was served with a demand of Rs.47,13,33,940/-. TDS credit was not granted and erroneous interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act were levied which were subsequently rectified but the levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act at Rs.51

Ms Amala Rathi Rayen, Mr. John Rosary Rayen, Mr Swamathia Rosario Rayen, Ms Ani Roselin Rayen All Le, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2851/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Amala Rathi Rayen, Assistant Commissioner Of John Rosary Rayen, Income Tax – Circle 26(1), Swamathia Rosario Rayen & Mumbai Ani Roselin Rayen (All Legal Heirs Vs. Of Albert Swamathia Rayen) 3-A, Saurabh Apartments, P.K. Road, Mulund West, Mumbai – 400 080 (Pan : Aeapr6369F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Vinita Nara Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

erred in applying section 115BBE to the additions made of Rs.41,73,950/- 7. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In ground no.1

Equitable Marketing Association, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

tune of Rs. 47,83,928/-, 5. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging interest U/s 234B at Rs.15,40,638/- and interest U/s 234D at Rs.1,32,706/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case