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

Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1871/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia बिधम/ Cit(A) Row House No. 4, Shree Income Tax Department, Vs. Tilak Complex, Eksar Road, National Faceless Appeal Devki Nagar, Borivli West, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai-400103, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd3444K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.06.2022 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043629976(1) Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Submissions Made By The Appellant. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao (I.E. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) Dated 22.12.2018, Wherein He Has (I) Made An Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of The Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 250Section 68

Syed Mohammed Rizwan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 68

Mohamed Hanif Rasul Patel, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1488/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1488/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohamed Hanif Rasul Patel, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Sangli. Golibar Road, Near Railway Crossing, Miraj, Sangli. Pan : Abppp5778G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur Dated 02.07.2018 Emanating From The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(5), Sangli, Dated 18.12.2017. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The A. O. The Assessing Authority & Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of The A.O. When He Passed The Assessment Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity As Mentioned In The Appeal Order Of Cit(A) In His Common Order. The Principles Of Natural Justice Have Been Violated. The Assessment Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)