“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

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1020/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 90(2)

lower tax deduction certificates (LDC) 12 obtained from Indian Tax Authorities. Therefore, no advance tax was payable. It was submitted that otherwise interest u/s 234B is applicable in case of short payment of advance tax. However, in the case of non-resident, the entire amount of tax applicable

ACIT-1(1), Bhopal vs. Akash Talreja, Raipur

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

ITA 349/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit 1(1) Akash Talreja Bhopal Lg-31 Samvet Shikhar, Building, Vs. Opposite Bjp Office Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aedpt3849K Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 15BSection 234BSection 69A

excluding income u/s 115BBE is less than Rs. 1 Crore, is not justified. 5. In the facts, circumstances and provisions of law the interest u/s 234B is computed wrongly. 6. In the facts, circumstances and provisions of law the initiation of penalty proceedings 271AAC(1) is not justified

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

simply by relying upon Form 3CL issued by DSIR not considering submissions made by the assessee before him. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” On Ground

Shankar Sewani, New Market vs. Assessing Officer, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 25/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 3

lawful and therefore be deleted. 5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law that the levy of interest u/s 234B is unlawful and unjustified in view of subsection 3 of section 234B of the Act and therefore the said levy be cancelled

Stryker India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 817/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarstryker India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), C-5, Sda Commercial Complex, Delhi. Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaecs2513F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 28.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 270ASection 271Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts on the impugned issue are that the assessee

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

royalty in the hands of the appellant. 6. Fro that the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs.4,42,46,000/-. 7. For that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in invoking provisions of Sec.144C

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the additional income agreed as per the Advance Pricing Agreement entered between the appellant and the Central Board

M/S. Primavera Projects-N-Constructions Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 1005/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

these conclusions are to be ignored and sub-contract expenses are to be allowed as deduction; 5. The appellant denies the liability pay interest u/s 234B of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. Primavera Projects-N-Constructions Limited, Bangalore Page

Atul Govindji Shroff, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

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. 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in initiating penalty u/s. 270A

A.H.Multisoft P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2400/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

supported by documentary evidence and the case laws have either been ignored or had not been properly appreciated. 8. That the levy of interest u/s 234B at Rs.3,46,14,690 and u/s 234D at Rs.7,614 is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, such interest is very excessive

Wapmerr Consultancy & Financial Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2819/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 68

confirmations and bank details of the said Directors. other details are given in attachment. Ground 0.5 The Ld. CIT(Appeals) had wrongly charged interest u/s 234B at Rs. 10,22,400/-.” Ground 0.6 The assessee reserves the right to add, alter, delete, amend the grounds of appeal. Ground

Gangapura Nagaraja Iyer Srinivasa, Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result we find that the order of the AO disallowing the purchase

ITA 640/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 44A

been considered by the learned Authorities below. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act." 5. The assessee has also filed a paper book containing the statement of accounts for the assessment years

Madhav Infra Projects Ltd (Erstwhile Aashka Constructions P. Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 88/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Madhav Infra Projects Ltd., Dcit, (Erstwhile Aashka Circle-1(1)(1), Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad 4, Madhav House, Nr. Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Baroda, Gujarat Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024/26.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 23.12.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming Action Of Ao Passing An Ex- Parte Order On An Entity That Ceased To Exist Pursuant To Order Of Amalgamation Passed By Hon'Ble High Court. The Order Passed On Non-Entity Is A Nullity & Void Ab Initio That Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

reduce its profits from share trading income without - any cogent evidence and without granting opportunity to cross examine the broker. 9. Levy of interest u/s 234B & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. Giving a brief

Govindappa Balappa Dandagi, Dharward vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hubli

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

ITA 629/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh .N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 69

Learned AO/CIT(A) has erred in making ad-hoc disallowance of interest expenses. 7. The learned AO/CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act with reference to the enhanced amount of demand arrived on the disputed additions. (Total tax effect: Rs.61,50,000/-) On the basis

Janta Adarsh Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3693/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 2(19)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

from its investments with any other "co-operative society" (The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd, Delhi). Ground No. 9 & 10 pertains to interest u/s 234B & 234C 4. Allowing Ground No. 10 pertaining to charging of Interest Rs. 85,766/- u/s 234B of the Act without any direction. 5. Allowing ... allowed in terms indicated herein above. 14. Now, coming to Ground Nos. 8 & 9 raised by the assessee which relate to levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. The levy of interest is consequential in nature hence, I hold accordingly. 15. Ground No.10 raised by the assessee

The Janta Adarsh Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3692/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 2(19)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Real Touch Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 4414/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

natural justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I T which was wholly wrong, and against the provisions of Income Tax At, 1961 and rules made thereunder

My Own Eco-Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-7(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 504/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, My Own Eco-Energy Vs. Acit, 7(2)(2) Private Limited, 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar A1, Office No. 444, 4 Th Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Shah & Nahar Maharashtra - 400020 Industrial Estate, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel West, Maharashtra 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm8412E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 68

erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. The appellant craves

Autoliv India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 799/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M. Harischandra Naik, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

against INR 145,758 computed by the Appellant in its ITR filed for AY 2021-22 Erroneous computation of interest u/s 234B of the 5 INR 5,474,629 Act 5.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming interest of INR 7,623, 123 u/s 234B of the Act as against