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

Amey Madhav Baitule, India vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

ITA 8671/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Amey Madhav Baitule Ito, Ward – 3(1), Kalyan 01 Plot No. Rm 25, Kasturi Shilp, Vs Rani Mansion, Kalyan, Kalyan- Milap Nagar, Midc Residential Dombivali, Maharashtra – 421301. Zone, Dombivali, Thane, Maharashtra – 421203. [Pan: Bbupb5254K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjiv Brahme, Ca Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfacdated 28.10.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Legal Point Raised By The Appellant That Notice U/S.148 Was Bad-In-Law & Has Been Done Mechanically. 2. The Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Ignoring Our Point With Regards To Approval By Prcit. 3. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law Since The Assessing Officer Has Not Received Any Fresh Material & He Had Earlier Issued Notice For Ay 2019-20, Which He Had Dropped 4. The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law As The Approval Was Given By Prcit, Mechanically. Prcit-1 Has Given Earlier Approval For Previous Assessment Year 2019-20 & After Being Pointing Out The Flaws, The Assessing Officer Amey Madhav Baitule

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69

Ntt India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6377/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physicalhearing) Ntt India Private Limited Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai Art Guild House, B Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Unit No. Fof-B-08-10 & 10A, Mumbai – 400020. Phoenix Market City, Lbs Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai – 400070. [Pan: Aaacd2145G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca & Ms. Maitri Pujara, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 09.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground No. 1: Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Inr 112,92,51,158/-On Account Of Payment Of Management Fees: 1.1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. Tpo') / Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Have Erred, In Making Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Inr 112,92,51,158/- To The Value Of International Transactions In Respect Of Payment Of Management Fees To Its Associate Enterprise ('Ae') I.E. Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. ('Ntt Asia'). 1.2. The Hon'Ble Drp / Ld. Tpo/Ld. Ao Have Erred In Law By Considering Management Fees Paid As A Separate Class Of Transaction & Segregating It For Benchmarking Purposes. Ntt India Private Limited

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 37