Section 234A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.423

Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 423 (Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 423 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 234A is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 of the 5,126 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234A

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court
614
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
452
citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

Judgments on Section 234A

Puttegowda Ravikumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1776/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 37Section 69

Chandanahalli Nagarajaiah Shashikiran, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1505/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavchandanahalli Nagarajaiah Acit, Circle - 2(2)(1) Shashikiran Bmtc Building No. 1954, 8Th Main, 'E' Block Vs. Koramangala Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560010 Bengluru 560095 Pan – Assps8286Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra M. Hegde, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2) The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed Total Income Of Rs. 4,39,15,228/- Against The Return Of Income Of Rs. 1,46,83,360/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra M. Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 54F