Section 234B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.424

Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 424 (Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 424 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 234B is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81), cited in 1,183 of the 10,214 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234B

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

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.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
366 ITR 408 · 2014 · High Court
519
citing judgments

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

Judgments on Section 234B

Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tapas Ram Misravikas Ashokkumar Masand, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Income Tax, Nr. Manav Mandir, Circle 3(1)(1), Drive-In Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380052. [Pan : Acbpa3190 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Ms Ridhi Masani, Ca On Behalf Of Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2026 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 16.07.2026 Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts On Record, Contrary To The Settled Judicial Precedents & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Evidence & Submissions Placed Before Him & Therefore Requires To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,40,123/-Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Act, When The Very

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs. ITO Ward 1, Junagadh

In the result, both appeals (ITA No

ITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 836 & 837/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21 ] Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Ito Ward 1, Junagadh, Nandanvan Patel Chowk, Junagadh, बनाम/ Dargahvali Sheri Manavadar Gujarat 362001 Vs. Junagadh, Gujarat-362630 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Acbpm4826B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2019-20 & 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 24.09.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148BSection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Shri Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Junagadh

In the result, both appeals (ITA No

ITA 836/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 836 & 837/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 & 2020-21 ] Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Ito Ward 1, Junagadh, Nandanvan Patel Chowk, Junagadh, बनाम/ Dargahvali Sheri Manavadar Gujarat 362001 Vs. Junagadh, Gujarat-362630 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Acbpm4826B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2019-20 & 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 24.09.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144B(8)Section 147Section 148BSection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A