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 130 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

When a property is vacant or the annual letting value (ALV) is not ascertainable, the ALV can be estimated at 8.5% of the construction cost or investment value. This estimation method is supported by case law, including ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)
207 ITR 148 · 1994 · High Court
23
citing judgments

A person is considered to be 'holding' property for the purpose of capital gains tax if they possess it as an owner, lessee, mortgagee, or under an agreement for sale, not solely as the legal owner.

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

Jayamma, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Shivamogga

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms stated above

ITA 1268/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: AIQPJ1030K
Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 43B

Jayamma, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Shivamogga

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms stated above

ITA 1267/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: AIQPJ1030K
Section 144Section 250Section 271BSection 43B

Gilshan Kumar, Aaspkf vs. ITO Ward 58(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1503/DEL/2026[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7045/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: I.T.A. No. 7045/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)Section 147

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6845/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: I.T.A. No. 7045/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)Section 147

Udaylal Narmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 6700/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethudaylal Narmal Jain Vs. Dcit Shop No. 1, Muncipal Bldg. Piramal Chamber Opp R.A. Kidwai Road Parel Post Office Lal Mumbai - 400037 Baug, Mumbai - 400012 Pan/Gir No. Adgpj7650Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya A/W Shri Rahul Punmiya Revenue By Shri V. Vinod Kumar Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Chandigarh For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 10(38)Section 234Section 250Section 68

Poonam Jaiswal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-3(5), Lucknow

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 334/LKW/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 251(2)Section 69A

Cashfree Payment India Private Limited, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1) Bangalore, Bangalore Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1200/BANG/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Prashant Maharishi & Hon’Ble Keshav Dubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

Ashok Palod, Bhopal vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), Hoshangabad Road

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “Impugned

ITA 259/IND/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year 2013-14 Ashok Palod, Acit/Dcit 1(1) बनाम/ E-1/31 Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

M/S. Estate of Shyamlal Khemka, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1276/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm M/S. Estate Of Shyamlal Khemka, Income Tax Officer,Ward 17(3)(1), 3Rd Floor, Hari Bhavan, Kautilya Bhavan, 64, Peddar Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 026 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan:Aabae3866C (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Bekal, AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234Section 250

Adamas Builders Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITTPA 2478/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.2478/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Adamas Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Tower A, Gound Floor Global Technology Of Income Tax, Park, Devara Beesana Halli Bangalore, Circle – 2(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aajaca 7789 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Divya K. J, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

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 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

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

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