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

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

ITA 1809/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

Gamnaram Okhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6790/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 234Section 234BSection 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)

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

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

Humana People to People India, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5506/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Humana People To People India, Vs. Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), 111/9Z, Kishangarh Village, Delhi Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, Pin: 1100 02 Delhi-1100 70 Pan :Aaach9111L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

Shri Pramodbhai Bhikubhai Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 7, Vapi

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

ITA 143/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Pramodbhai Bhikhubhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Desaiwad, Palsana, Udwada Rs Ward – 7, Udwada, Valsad - 396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Atppd1828D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250

Prabhodhankarthakare Vidyalaya, Boisar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Thane, Quereshi Mansion

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

ITA 4215/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 69

Narayana Rao Sujatha, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

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

ITA 803/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69A

Syed Zahed Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Syed Zahed Ali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aifpa6433J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sumitha Parmata, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Syed Zahed Ali (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sumitha Parmata, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

Jugal Kishore English Wine Shop Village Telka Tehsil Salooni Distt Chamba Himachal Pradesh, Chamba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Dalhousie Income Tax Office Banikhet Distt Dalhousie, Chamba

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 269/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A