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

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2847/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice & Shri Ravish Soodtata Steel Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Bombay House, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 24, Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Mumbai 400 020. Pan – Aaact2803M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai (For Short „Pr.Cit‟) Under Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 28.03.2019 For A.Y 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:- Sr. No. Ground (S) Amount (S) Of Disallowance 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax [“Ld. Pcit”] Erred In Rs.41,70,51,091 Revising, Purportedly Under Sec.263, The Assessment Order “U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961”, Dated 27Th February, 2017, Of The (Tax Effect Learned Assessing Officer [“Ld. A.O”]. Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Ground (S) On Jurisdiction Amount (S) Of Disallowance 2. Without Prejudice To The Generality Of The Foregoing, The Ld. Pcit‟S Rs.41,70,51,091 Revisional Order Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal For The Following Reasons: (Tax Effect (I) The Initiation Of The Proceedings Under Sec.263 Was Without Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Jurisdiction, Inasmuch As That Provision, In Terms, Authorizes The Authorities Specified Therein To Revise Only An “…….. Order Passed…………By The Assessing Officer……….” Not An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 7486/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7486/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ World Trade Centre [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7494/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Ambuja Cements Limited Dcit–Range-3(1) [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd] बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Elegant Business Park Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 0569 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.222/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 7494/Mum/2007] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] World Trade Centre Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh Thar, Hardik Nirmal &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR & Shri
Section 115JSection 143(3)