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

Manish Bhogilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3, Navsari

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

ITA 687/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69C

Shri Naveen Goyal, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenaveen Goyal Prop. Vs. Ito Ward 1(1) Naveen Trading Company S-4, Bikaner Anaz Mandi, Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Babpg 8637 D Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac] Delhi Dated 21.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Which Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts & Is Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. The Proceedings U/S 144 Are Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Made By Assessing Officer By Assuming Deemed Income Of Commission @ 4% On The Loan Taken Amount 17,50,00,000/- Taxed It At As An Income From Other Source. Both The Authorities Have Totally Ignored Whole Relevant Facts & Documents Submitted By The Appellant. So The Addition So Made Is Arbitrary & Unwarranted. The Unsecured Asst. Year: 2018-19 2 Loan Taken Rs. 17,50,00,000/- During The Year Is Genuine & Fare So The Addition May Kindly Be Quashed. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Interest Charged U/S 234A, 234B & 234C Of The Act. 4. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 3. The Sole & Common Issue Challenged In The Grounds Of Appeal Pertains To An Addition Rs. 70 Lakh By Treating 4% Deemed Commission On Allegedly Routing Money Of A Director Of The Company By Way Of Treating Shares Of 17.50 Cr As Against Unsecured Loan Of Rs. 17.00 Crore Taken From M/S Vikas Granaries Ltd.

Section 144Section 234A