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

Sudndaram Rajasundaram, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with above factual and legal observations

ITA 3932/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3932/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Sundaram Rajasundaram V. Deputy Commissioner Of No. G 02, Akshaya Level Up, Income Tax, No.53/54, Sterling Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aeopr1964C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Chennai- 19, Dated 28.10.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2014-15. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissing The Appeal Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 154 Dated 30.10.2019 Reworking The Levy Of Interests Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Act. Sundaram Rajasundaram 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Levy Of Interests U/S. 234A & 234B Was Considered In The Earlier Order U/S.154 Passed On 31.3.2018 & Hence There Is No Mistake Apparent Warranting Rectification Of The Order.

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 200ASection 206CSection 234A