“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

M/S. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been levied in excess by Rs.50,012/: 8. The ld. Counsel has submitted that CPC Bangalore has incorrectly levied excess interest u/s 234B & u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as mentioned above. 9. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. We direct ... recomputed the interest u/s 234B and 234C in accordance with provision of law. Therefore, these ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2022 (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Barkha Ramesh Merchant, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blebarkha Ramesh Merchant V. Acit – 16(1) 110/111, Crescent Mansion Room No. 439 Gamdevi Lane, Gamdevi Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400007 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Afnpm4225P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chintan Patel Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Chintan PatelFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

shares of M/s.SHREENATH COMMERCIAL FINANCE (alleged penny stock company) of Rs. 2,07,59,000/. 4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that facts in the present case and facts

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

erred in rejecting the tax credit as per provisions of section 115JAA of the Act. 6. The appellant denies liabilities for interest u/s 234B & C. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 7. For the above and other grounds and reasons which

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

Rs.15,19,93,90,755 as against the income of Rs.4,93,71,22,200 declared in the return of income. Further, interest u/s 234B of the Act was levied amounting to Rs.1,81,25,18,840 and also interest u/s 234C was recomputed to Rs.2

Borchers India Chemicals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO-Ward-25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: “1. (A) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Jurisdiction Exercised By Centralized Processing Centre Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Involving Allowability Of Claim On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund (Under The Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) Under Section 36(L)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43b

shown 234B interest to the amount of Rs.64,448/-, however, in the intimation u/s 143(1) the assessing officer has computed the interest u/s 234B to the amount of ITA No.1354/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 5 Borchers India chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, Ward 25(2)(1) Rs.1,66,237/-, in this

Kady Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3262/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234BSection 68

learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,70,36,086/and thereby charging tax of Rs. 56,58,963/and interest u/s 234B of Rs. 21,68,844/and raising a demand of Rs.78,27,810/-. 2 ITA.NO. 3262/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Kady Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., GROUND ... compliance of principles of natural justice. GROUND NO. 6 The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of Rs. 21,68,844/-. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforementioned grounds at the time of the hearing

Smt. Deepika, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1202/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

Section 138Section 234Section 56Section 68Section 69

Accordingly, the addition is deleted. Smt. Deepika, Bangalore Page 6 of 7 13. The next ground is with regard to the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, which is consequential and mandatory in nature. 14. With regard to the additional ground, the gift received from Smt. Pushpa

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Yogesh ShahFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

profession. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to delete interest u/s 234B of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

ITA 1445/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Rupa GamiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

return filed by the Appellant, resulting into short TDS credit of Rs.7,04,39,392. b. Consequentially, the AO also erred in charging interest u/s 234B and u/s 234C of the Art. 6 M/s. ECL Finance Limited The AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s

Indian Clothing League(P) Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 505/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

jurisdiction. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, u/s 234B of the Act, u/s 234C of the Act and u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

Bharat Vijaykumar Jain (HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

legal grounds relating to Transfer Pricing. iii. Ground Nos. 4 to 7 related to TP Adjustments on merits. iv. Ground No.8 is interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF engaged in jewellary business. For the asst. year

M/S. R.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 735/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S.RaoFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liable to the same. 7. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of the sum of Rs.75,581 as interest u/s 234B as the appellant is not liable to the same. 8. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of the sum of Rs.65

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1364/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

Ground No.14 – Two companies wrongly included as comparable companies. (vii) Ground No.15 – depreciation on assets acquired on slump sale. (viii) Ground No.16 – Interest u/s 234B – consequential. Additional Grounds (ix) Ground No.14A – Application of turnover filter and related to Ground 4 & 5. (x) Ground No.14B - Two companies wrongly included

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1714/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6303/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

India. c) Attribution of income to the PE should be 2.6% of the sales made by GE Overseas entities in India; and d) Interest u/s 234B of the Act is not chargeable. 13. Since the Tribunal has not given any independent findings while deciding the appeals for Assessment Years

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6302/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6300/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Mol Corporation, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Uppal AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 234B

pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The common grievance in both the appeals relates to the directions of the DRP to delete interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. Since the underlying facts in issues are common in both these appeals, they were heard together and are disposed