“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

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

delete in full. 3. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act and as also. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions ... appeal filed before him. 4. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D as consequential in nature. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. Hence the interest so charged, being

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

Meeta Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1793/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2019-20 Meeta Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O Jain & Malhotra, Ward-68(8), 117, Inderprakash Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Axops3464K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Invoking Section 50C Of The I.T Act Without Following The Proper Procedure Laid Down In The Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.9,50,000/-. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal,' Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Enhancing The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. The Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Submit, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or On The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 50C

quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in enhancing the interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived and unjustified therefore it should be quashed

Narayan (Through His L/H Satpal Singh), Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward - 1, Bhiwani

ITA 9878/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing The Appeal.

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

false or incorrect. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal regarding charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C from a senior citizen having no business income as per direction in the assessment order dated 23/03/16. 3. The order

Niralkumar K. Shah, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 776/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Niralkumar K Shah, I.T.O., B-001, Sharddha Co.Op Hsg. Soc., Ward-6, Vs. Gunan Road, Ta-Pardi, Valsad. Vapi. M. No. 9913800836 E Mail-Parinshahca@Gmail.Com Pan No. Bvjps 2700 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 254(1)

assessee would lead to double taxation which is against the principle of natural justice. It be so held now. 5. Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The order passed in illegal and without observing principle of natural justice and required to be quashed

Ess (Formerly Knwon As Espn Star Sports), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(2)(2), International Taxtion, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7903/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 253Section 271Section 9

correct credit of taxes deducted at source. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground no. 8, relating to charging of interest of interest u/s 234B is consequential. The Assessing officer will recalculate the charging of interest, if any, while giving effect to the appellate order. 10 11. Ground

P.Sudarshan, `Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhaptnam

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

ITA 53/VIZ/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.53/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) P.Sudarshan Vs. Income Tax Officer 33-12-35, Devangula Veedhi Ward-1(2) Allipuram Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahwpp6272G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Sanjeevarao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Sanjeevarao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

estimation of the profit @3.5%. 4. That the Learned CIT(A)-1 erred in not expressing his opinion on the charge of interest u/s 234B of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,61,749/- having regard to the facts of the case. The appellant denies its liability for payment ... this ground. Hence, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. With respect to Ground No.4, regarding the payment of interest u/s 234B, which is consequential in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 9. Ground No.5 and 6 are general in nature and needs no adjudication

Shri Dhirendra Narbheram Sheth, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 2 (3) (5), Rajkot

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

ITA 181/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 234B

u/s 234A is charged from the original due date of filing the return to the date of actual filing of the return. Similarly, interest u/s 234B is charged from start of the AY to the date of determination of income u/s 143(1) or regular assessment including u/s 147. Section

Luzito Sebastiao Rodrigues, Salcete vs. ITO, Int. Txn. Ward`, Panaji

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 12/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant

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

u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s

Cj Darcl Logistics Limited, Haryana vs. Circle 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 288/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234B

cess, which are part and parcel of “tax”, which contradicts the well-established principles laid down by various judicial precedents. 2. Consequential Interest u/s 234B and 2R4C of INR 9,89,440 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... taxmann.com 1/54 SOT 185 (Delhi - Trib.) gave similar finding. The other ground of appeal of the assessee is regarding interest u/s 234B & 234C, it is a mandatory provision and is consequential in nature and in view of our adjudication on ground 1 above, the ground No.2 is also decided against

Malook Singh, Hapur vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 788/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 234B

engaged in non-agricultural activities. 7. That the CIT has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” ITA Nos. 787 & 788/Del/2021 3 Malook Singh 4. In ITA No. 788/Del/2021, following grounds have been ... engaged in non-agricultural activities. 6. That the CIT has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act,1961.” ITA Nos. 787 & 788/Del/2021 4 Malook Singh 5. The case of the assessee has been taken

Malook Singh, Hapur vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 234B

Sai International, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

ITA 7059/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6621/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.7059/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

7059.Del.2019 3 That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts by 6. dismissing the ground for not charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without considering the merits of the case. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and fact

Sai International, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

ITA 6621/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6621/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.7059/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Jatinder Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7312/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandrajatinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Acit 4, Lucknow Road, New Circle – 26(1) Delhi-110 054 New Delhi Pan No. Aajpa 9380 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

facts and the peculiar circumstances of each case. 5. That further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) has erred in levying interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act failing to appreciate that on the facts of the case, no such interest was leviable. It is, therefore, prayed that

Assam Supari Traders, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8717/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 8717/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Assam Supari Traders, Vs Acit, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Circle-48(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofa7566M Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

provisions of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in charging of an interest u/s 234B. Without prejudice the interest charged is also excessive. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate

Smt. Krishna Agrawal, Sahib Lal Ramnath Saraf, Chauth Mata Bazar, Kota vs. ACIT, Kotat, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 604/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

allowed in preceding and succeeding assessment year relevant to the year under consideration. 3. That the ld. Lower Authorities also erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of Rs.s21,712/- and Rs.9,018/- respectively. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee ... merit in the appeal of the assessee which is dismissed. 4.1 The Ground No. 3 of the assessee is regarding charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of Rs.21,712/- and Rs.9,018/- which is consequential in nature. SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS ACIT, KOTA 5.0 In the result, the appeal

Raju Kashyap, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-42(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 905/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

addition confirmed is on higher side. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) - 43, New Delhi, is not justified in confirming the levy of interest U/s 234B & 234C which is without passing the speaking order. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or amen' grounds of appeal

Mwh India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmwh India Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 168, Udyog Bhavan, Circle-9(2)(3), Sonawala Road, Room No. 147B, Goregaon (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 063 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca4613L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

Appeals) ought to have held as such. 2:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to re- compute the interest u/s 234B levied on it in accordance with law and to re-compute its tax liability accordingly. 3:0 Re: General: 3:1 The Appellant craves leave ... instead of Sec. 10B of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed. 2nd Ground: Excess levy of interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.95,77,946/-: 7. In the case of the assesse the A.O passed the regular assessment order u/s