“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

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

liability. We note that the cash was lying with the department from 05.11.2020 and accordingly, the ld. AO is directed to charge the interest u/s 234B of the Act after adjusting the cash seized on 05.11.2020. The ground no. 6 is allowed. A.Y. 2020-21 xiv. The issue raised

D Ajeethraj Chordia & Sons, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward -4(5), Chennai

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

ITA 2143/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2143/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. D Ajeethraj Chordia & The Income Tax Officer, Sons, Non Corporate Ward – 4(5), 23, General Muthia Mudali Vs. Chennai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aaahd 2647C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 154Section 226Section 234BSection 246A

period of exclusion granted by Supreme Court on account of Covid-19 pandemic. 02.09.2021 Suo moto rectification order passed for re- computing interest u/s 234B of the Act 03.03.2022 Bank attachment of the appellant was attached 29.05.2022 Completion of of period of exclusion granted by Supreme Court including the grace

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 837/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

appeal for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are also allowed. In ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B in both the appeals for AYs 2017- 18 and 2018-19 which is consequential in nature and accordingly the Ld. AO is directed to grant

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 836/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Pune

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

ITA 835/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.837, 835 & 836/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Wockhardt Limited, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431006 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Pan : Aaacw2472M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Manthan Shah Shri Amit Bobde 13-08-2025 10-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Three Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) All Dated 27.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune ["Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since, The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, Stafford, United Kingdom vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1)Del, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms aforesaid

ITA 2042/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Uk Grid Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income St Leonards Building, Harry Tax, Circle International Taxation Kerr Dive, Stafford St16 1Wt, Vs -3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road United Kingdom-99999 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaica6271A Assessee/Appellant Revenue/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

Counsel, ground no.2 of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 13. In ground no.15 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. Charging of interest on aforesaid section is mandatory and consequential. Hence, ground no.15 is dismissed. 14. In ground no.16 of appeal

Senghani and Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5039/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsenghani & Associates, 808, 8Th Floor Ecstacy Business Park, Jsd Road Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Acafs6377C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(3)(1), Ito, Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(1)Section 234BSection 250

amended to the said extent. 10. On the facts & circumstances of the case, The appellant prays that consequential levy of additional interest u/s 234B of the Act is not justified & be deleted.” 3 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 201/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234B of Rs. 8,460/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld. A.O. erred ... 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO 4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234B of Rs. 9484/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld. A.O. erred

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 200/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

dated 07.11.2024. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPC has erred in law in levying wrong excess interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or withdraw any Ground or Grounds of Appeal.” 6. Before ... give credit of seized cash toward self-assessment tax paid of Rs. 5371411/- as self-assessment tax and also not to charge interest u/s 234B of the Act from the date of seizure to the date of assessment. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”  Hon’ble ITAT, Indore

Volark Leasing Ifsc Pvt. Ltd, Gujarat vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80Section 80JSection 80L

under section 143(1) is bad in law and shall be quashed. 4. That the Ld. AO, CPC erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C under the facts & in law in the circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend, delete or add any grounds

Vijay Singh, Salarpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar

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

ITA 393/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 234BSection 69ASection 80C

kindly be allowed in full 4. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B& 234C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions

Anshuman Auto Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4152/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anshuman Auto Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), 2126/59, Laxmi Bhawan, New Delhi Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca0872H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148

appeal are dismissed. 6.3 As regard to ground No. 3, the AO is directed to re-calculate interest u/s 234B & 234C as per provisions of the Act after giving effect to this order. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration

Shree Capital Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 253(3)

Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shree Capital Services Ltd. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C is grossly unjustified. 3. That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated ... erroneous computation of tax liability @ 30% instead of 22% u/s 115BAA of the Act at ₹10,42,37,308/-, erroneous levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act at ₹1,51,17,172/- and short grant of TDS at ₹28,563/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed

Relationship Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

against the loss of (Rs. 11,60,12,579/-) declared by the assessee. Consequential notice of demand u/s 156 for tax and interest u/s 234B was issued. 3.2 During the assessment proceedings, Ld. AO raised a query to the assessee company to submit calculations of cost and revenue under Percentage

Sunita Saini, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

made 82,85,883/- Tax on addition to be made 24,85,195/- Education Cess 99,430/- Total 25,85,195/- Interest u/s 234B 18,61,340/- Tax effect 44,46,535/- 3. On the basis of discrepancies, it is observed that the assessment framed by NFAC, Delhi u/s

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

keeping in mind the provisions of section 205 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 28. Ground No.7 is with regard to interest u/s 234B and penalty u/s 271. The ground is consequential and does not warrant a separate adjudication. 29. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

sustainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions are deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

erred in rejecting the request for not adjusting the money lying in PD A/c against advance tax liability/self-assessment tax and charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which is contrary to the provisions of law where the specific