“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

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

credit of TDS if submission of appellant is found correct. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed. 6.8. Ground of Appeal No. 9– interest u/s 234B, is consequential in nature and not adjudicated. 6.9. Ground of Appeal No. 10– claim of education cess u/s

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 205/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodand

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

credit of TDS if submission of appellant is found correct. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed. 6.8. Ground of Appeal No. 9- interest u/s 234B, is consequential in nature and not adjudicated. 6.9. Ground of Appeal No. 10- claim of education cess u/s

Raghunath Singh, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 490/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

claim made under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,00,526/- 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I.T Act. 9. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing" Succinctly stated, the assessee

Manavadariya Dharmendra Kantilal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 318/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

made under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,00,526/- 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I.T Act. 9. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee

Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

alleged under- reporting and misreporting of income, despite the Appellant's full compliance with tax provisions. Ground No. 5: Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C. a. The Learned AO erred in levying interest under Sections 234B and 234C. 3 Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Mumbai. b. The Learned CIT(A) erred

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi erred in charging interest u/s 234B at Rs. 2,45,49,520/-. The interest charged under the said section is very excessive and high”. 3. Record of Hearing

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The assessee has raised solitary issue of addition made under section 68 of the Income

Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (Exemptions) Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2888/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj. CAFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 40A(9)

accumulative liability. 4. That on facts and in law the Ld. AO erred, and Ld. CIT (A) upheld in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act.” Page 2 of 6 [A.Y. 2016-17] Delhi Dev. Authority Vs. ACIT[E] 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

Lalmuni Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

time. Therefore interest u/s 234A should not be levied. 5. Section 234B. Since there was long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 178/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 176/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sureel Enterprise Private Limited, Chhatral vs. ACIT Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 461/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground regarding charging interest u/s 234B of IT Act for Rs.3,51,912/-. 6) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the Learned Commissioner of Income

Sureel Enterprise Private Limited, Chhatral vs. ACIT, Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

Konda Karabi, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

ITA 4/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

made in this respect is fit to be deleted. 9. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge of interest u/s 234B at Rs. 2,83,500/- and u/s 234D at Rs. 37,072/- is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. In view of jurisdictional high ... court, the interest u/s 234B is chargeable on income returned. The interest as charged is fit to be deleted. 10. For that the assessee reserves her right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 11. For that the appellant craves leave to urge, add or alter any other

Nilesh Ishwar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4931/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnilesh Ishwar Mehta V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 2301/A, 23Rd Floor, बनाम Income Tax-17(1) Parthenon Building, J.P. Room No. 117, Kautilya Road, Mumbai – 400 053, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Maharashtra Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm2417P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56(2)(vii)

aside with a direction to the AO to delete the addition. Ground of appeal stands allowed. 8. Ground no.3 pertaining to charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act is consequential in nature and does not need any adjudication. 9. In the result, the appeal

Mani Madhukar Bansal, Telangana vs. ACIT, Circle- Int. Tax 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2637/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sarogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 234B

ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru to deny the TDS credit of Rs.37,04,946/-. 2. The CIT (A) erred in conforming the additions of interest u/s 234B and 234C made by ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru.” 5. At the time of hearing, both the counsels appearing for the assessee as well as Revenue before

Van Bros Construction Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2381/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2381/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम Van Bros Construction Pvt. Ltd., Assessment Unit B-113, Lajpat Nagar-1, Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi. National Faceless Appeal, Pan No.Aaacv1092J Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234D

order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates to calculation of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. That the AO’s order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case ... order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates to calculation of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. That the AO's order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case

Gourav Bhargava, Bhopal vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 235/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 43B

exempt from tax. 8.BECAUSE, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in computing and confirming the charging interest U/S 234B Rs.86,182~ & 234C Rs. 46,258~respectively. 9. That, with respect to the disallowance of Rs. 12,218 under Section