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

Narbod Constructions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 926/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 926/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Narbod Constructions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 9, Tharapore Avenue, Harrington Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaacn1133C] Chennai 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 13.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relate (I) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Personal Expenses, (Ii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Road Repairs & Maintenance & (Iii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Professional Fee Besides Challenging Levy Of Interest Under Section 234 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234

DCIT CC -4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Hitesh S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 6026/MUM/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) बिधम/ Hitesh S. Mehta Central Range-4, Mumbai. 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Vs. Pr. Cit(2), Mumbai Worli, Mumbai-400018. Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Hitesh S. Mehta बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-4(1) 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992-93. Ita. No.5190/Mum/2017 6026/M/2017 A.Y.1992-93 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / ShriFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 80L

Hitesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5190/MUM/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) बिधम/ Hitesh S. Mehta Central Range-4, Mumbai. 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Vs. Pr. Cit(2), Mumbai Worli, Mumbai-400018. Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Hitesh S. Mehta बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-4(1) 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992-93. Ita. No.5190/Mum/2017 6026/M/2017 A.Y.1992-93 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / ShriFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 80L