Section 234 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 234 is CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (180 Taxmann 87), cited in 40 of the 70 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.
180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.
83 ITD 427 · 2002 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

Submissions made by the assessee's counsel in a case concerning additions to income due to alleged on-money payments are to be considered in their entirety. The assessment should not add the same amount twice for different assessment years.

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)
207 ITR 148 · 1994 · High Court
23
citing judgments
Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. ITO Surmmon V ITO
27 Taxmann 157 · 1986 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Dr. Vijay Pahwa v. DCIT
250 ITR 354 · 2001 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Spandana (Rural & Urban Development Organisation) v. ACIT
40 DTR 153 · 2010 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv.)
123 Taxmann.com 117 · 2021 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Khem Chand Mukim v. PCIT (Inv)
423 ITR 129 · High Court
6
citing judgments
CIT v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited
377 ITR 66 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Bharatha Swamukhi Samsthe
28 DTR 113 · 2009 · Reported
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 234

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

ITA 2876/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

ITA 4191/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

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

ITA 2402/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Rohan R PotdarFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234

RAJA MOHLE, KAWARDHA,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per aforesaid terms

ITA 821/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Mohle Chote Ragra, Indauri, Kawardha-491 336 (C.G.) Pan: Bvrpm0901R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

DHARMESH ANANTRAY BHATT,BHUJ vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHUJ, RAJKOT

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

ITA 844/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 44ASection 69A

SHRI ABDUL WAHAB WAJIDALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 254(1)Section 69A

METRIK INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 125/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 37Section 9

NATHUBHAI YUSUFJI KURESHI,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 95/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 69C

MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,PANCHANAN BUILDING TT NAGAR vs. CPC BANGALORE, CPC BANGALORE

ITA 848/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

ABHIMANYU GUPTA ,PATIALA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

DHANSAMRIDHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2), NEW DELHI , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1377/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

KLJ DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-31 , DELHI

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

ITA 6027/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Kjl Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Kjl House, 8A, Shivaji Marg, Income, Central Circle-31, Najafgarh Road, Karam Pura New Delhi South West, Delhi- 1100 15 Pan No. Aacck7445E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

MEHMUD AHMED MIAN AHMED POTHIGARA,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 1810/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

MEHMUD AHMED MIAN AHMED POTHIGARA,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 1808/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

MEHMUD AHMED MIAN AHMED POTHIGARA,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 1807/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

MAHANTH MOTORS,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234

MAHANTH MOTORS ,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234

TUMLARE SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed as above

ITA 2653/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)

TALUKA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALI SINDAGI ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 1727/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 115BSection 142Section 144Section 69A

SHRI. BHADRESHWAR EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION , GULBARGA

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

ITA 838/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4