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

Madan Lal Jat, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1883/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptamadan Lal Jat Vs. Ito Nitharwalo Ki Dhani, Ward 7(1) Mundli Renwal Jaipur Raj. Jaipur 303603 (Present Address C/O G.S. Stonex, 3/185- Bachamanglam Ring Road Semanur Village Bagur Krishnagiri Tamil Nadu 635108, Jaipur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Bdqpj 0380 Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 31- 10-25. P A G E | 2 Madan Lal Jat 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. The Impugned Order U/S 147 Rws 144 Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2022 As Well As The Notice U/S 147 Rws 144 & Action Or Proceedings U/S 147/144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law, Barred By Limitation, Without Jurisdiction, Without Approval/Satisfaction From The Proper Or Competent Authority, In Valid Exparty Order In Gross Breach Of The Law & Against The Principle Of Natural Justice & Various Other Reasons Or & Further Contrary To The Real Facts Of The Case Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

The Alice Green, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ ACIT-1, Central Circle, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 327/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 The Alice Green, Vs Dcit/Acit, Central Circle- Dohra Road Near Mayfair Lawns, Bareilly Bareilly, U.P. Pan: Abgfm6047E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 20.02.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2018-19 On 8.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “Becuase The Assessment Order Dated 08.04.2021 Was Passed Without Issuing Show Cause Notice/Draft Assessment Order, Which Omission Is Fatal To The Survival Of The Assessment Order, Being In Complete Violation Of Provisions Of Clause (Xiv) Of Section 144B Of The Act & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Assessment Order, Being Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To Aforesaid 2.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 88,00,000/- Made By Dc/Acit Central Circle -1, Bareilly By Treating The Expenditure Incurred On Construction Of Building As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 271ASection 44ASection 69