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

Discovery Communications India, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Discovery Communication India, Vs Jcit 125-B, Somdatt Chamber-1, Special Range-3, 5 Bikaji Cama Place, C. R. Building, New Delhi-110066. I.P. Estate, Pan-Aaacd4746K New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Rohan Khare, Adv. & Shri Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.08.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2017 Passed By Ld. Jcit, Special Range-3, New Delhi U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”], In Conformity With The Directions Dated 20.12.2016 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (‘The Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Of Discovery Channel Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. & Acted As An Agent For Its Associated Enterprise (“Ae”) Being Discovery Asia Llc (“Dallc”) & Animal Planet Asia Llc (“Apllc”) & Is Engaged In The Following Activities:- A. Exclusively Market & Distribute The Channels To Users; B. Exclusively Market & Sell Commercial Airtime On The Channel To Third-Party Advertisers In India; & C. Providing Services In Relation To Sourcing Or Production Of Program Contents In India.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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