← 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

Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri, Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1514/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia बिधम/ Ito-14(1)(2) 72, Tenerife Little Gibbs Room No. 457, Aayakar Vs. Road No.2, Malabar Hill, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp8377R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee (Individual) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Conforming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Rs. 5,12,121/- Out Of Expenses U/S 14A. Your Appellant Submits That No Expenditure Has Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Exempt Income & The Entire Disallowance Of Rs. 5,12,121/- Ought To Be Deleted. Without Prejudice To The Above, Your Appellant Submits That The Disallowance Is Excessive & Ought To Be Reduced Substantially.

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 234B

Manu Mahmud Parpia 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in conforming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest u/s 234B at Rs. 75,252/-. Your appellant submits that the same ought to be restricted to Rs. 38,138/- as worked in computation of income ... discussion, we direct deletion of Rs. 5,12,121/-. 8. The ground no. 2 is against the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 234B of Rs.75,252/- whereas according to the assessee it ought to be restricted to Rs.38,138/-. 9. It has been brought to our notice

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1093/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-7(1)(1), National Stock Exchange Of Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. India Ltd. बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 Exchange Plaza, Bandra Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1797L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Harsh Kapadia, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 30.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistry & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 263

statutory contribution to ‘Core Settlement Guarantee Fund’, not granting of TDS to the extent of Rs. 5,31,13,729/- and charging of interest u/s 234B. Thus, the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority therefore should be directed to 4 I.T.A. No. 1093/Mum/2022 National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. decide

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5597/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5597/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Maharashtra Housing & Acit (Exemption)-2(1) बिधम/ Area Development Piramal Chambers, Vs. Office Of Finance Lalbaug, Mumbai- Controller, Mhada, 4Th 400012. Floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaajm0344H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-01, Mumbai Dated 28.06.2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “1.0 Denial Of Exemption Under S. 11 The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Upholding The Assessment Order Appealed Against Denying Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Granted Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. 2.0 Engaged In Business:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. JasmineFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 234B

U/s 11(2) of the Act. Relief claimed: Application made in Form 10 as filed by the Appellant be considered. 8.0 Levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the dismissing Ground of appeal before him, challenging the charge ... interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act, on the ground that it was consequential, without appreciating that the appellant was denying the very application of s.234B & 234C of the Act to it, for the fact that the appellant was not under obligation to pay advance tax. ITA Ns. 5597/Mum/2017 A.Ys