“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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 520/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year

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 ... applications have been upheld in this order. 10.2 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore the AO is directed to give effect

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 519/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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 la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Oscar Infra Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 70(2)

Ground of appeal No. 4 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations 15. The assessee has further assailed the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As the levy of interest as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

assessee new further got the valuation done of such construction. 2. That the AO levied interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.92,650/- and interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.1,01,370/- for the assessment year 2012-13. Whereas since there is no additional tax liability, hence there does not arise

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/- in AY 2017- 18 with a tax effect of Rs.1,76,48,487 including interest u/s 234B. The balance excess WDV of Rs.53,41,04,082/- with a potential effect of Rs.18,48,42,740/also needs to be rectified

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

arrangement between PGCIL and the Appellant. It be so held now. 7. The AO erred in fact and in law in charging interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the Act. 8. The AO has erred in facts and in law in initiating penalty proceeding u/s ... method and the ground was dismissed. Following the same reasoning, Ground 6 of the present appeal is dismissed. 5.5 Ground 7: Levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C 5.5.1 The assessee has challenged the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. 5.5.2 In AY 2012-13, the DB held that

Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 742/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

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

showing the Remand Report called by him from Assessing Officer and Confirming the addition. 7. CIT(A) has erred in Stating Interest u/s 234B, 234A is consequential, instead of deleting the same. 8. Appellant Prays for just and equitable relief. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify and/or withdraw

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

still pending. We, accordingly direct Ld.AO to delete the interest u/s 234A wrongly charged in the computation sheet. 12. Ground No. 15 & 16: Interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act This is a consequential issue and Ld.AO is directed to recomputed the interest as applicable u/s 234B & 234C

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2223/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 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 and 234C of Income Tax Act, 196l.” 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee pressed Ground Nos.1, 2 and 6 relating

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2222/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 68

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2221/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133DSection 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 37Section 68

Brij Mohan Joshi, Sendhwa vs. Ward Sendhwa, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibrij Mohan Joshi, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 3, Behind Of Goi Wala Ward Sendhwa Vs. Building, Ram Katora Mohalla, Sendhwa

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 44ASection 68

specified limits. 5] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld A.O erred in charging interest u/s 234B at Rs.2,06,646/-” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 22.09.2025 when

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 321/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Ground That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) not justified and rather grossly erred in imposing interest u/s 234B and 234C when the appellant has been assessed under MAT provision for the assessment year under consideration. 1.8 That on the facts ... ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.22 Additional Ground No. 5, this ground relates to challenging the imposition of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. 5.23 After having heard the counsels of both the parties and found that the additional grounds raised by the assessee

Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 319/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

That on the facts and in the circum circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) not justified and rather grossly erred in imposing interest u/s 234B and 234C when the appellant has been assessed under MAT provision for the assessment year under consideration. 1.8 That on the facts ... ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.22 Additional Ground No. 5, this ground relates to challenging the imposition of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. 5.23 After having heard the counsels of both the parties and found that the additional grounds raised by the assessee

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1174/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1173/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)