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

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Valsad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 1689/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O. P. Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1689/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Raj Kishore Prasad Ito, Ward-3 F-8, Ayodhyanagar Soc., Valsad. Vs. Opp. Sahjivan Soc., Shantinagar, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aitpp0535A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Divyang Shah Revenue By: Shri Mayank Pandey (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Valsad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. “1 On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Adding Leave Travel Concession Of Rs.2,10,518/- By Not Allowing Exemption Under Section 10(5) Of The Act. 2. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Assessing Officer Has Also Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Divyang ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (DR)
Section 10(5)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Amit Sureshbhai Masrani, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 330/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Amit Sureshbhai Masrani The Ito Ward-1(1) Old Lig-566 Bhavnagar Vs. Anandnagar Bhavnagar-364 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Avdpm0160B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Aditi Sheth, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilabhra Dasgupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 29/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-6/40/15-16 Dated 28/11/2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 18/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.17,59,085/- U/S.40(A)(Ia) R.W.S. 194H Of The Act. Amit Sureshbhai Masrani Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Disallowing Rs.16,22,125/- Out Of Retailer Support Incentive Expenses U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Smt. Aditi Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilabhra Dasgupta, Sr.DR
Section 194HSection 234ASection 271(1)Section 40

ITO 33 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshad M. Padia, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5821/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Ito-33(1)(5), Shri Harshadrai M. Padia, C-12, 703, Pratyakshakar Khyati Hydraulics, 13, Bhavan, Bkc, Gopal Kunj, Sarojini Naidu Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpp1488Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 08.06.2018 & 11.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Since, Both The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, The Same Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Khyati Hydraulics Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143Section 148

Western Drilling Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO Ward3(5), Noida

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

ITA 3642/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Western Drilling Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Plot No.1A, Institutional Area, Ward-3(5), Sector-16A, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aaafw5961A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2018 Of The Cit(A)-1, Noida, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1, 2 & 3 Which Are Corelated Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Interest Of Rs.27,82,217/- Earned On Fixed Deposits Placed As Margin Money With Bank For Issuance Of Bank Guarantee For Oil Blocks, A "Income From Other Sources" On The Ground That Margin Money Placed With The Bank For Issuance Of Guarantees Is Not A Pre-Condition For Set Up Of Business Of The Appellant. 2. On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Fixed Deposits Placed As Margin Money With Bank For Issuance Of Bank Guarantee Could Not Be Held To Be Intrinsically Connected With The Business Of The Appellant. 3. Without Prejudice, On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing Deduction Of Proportionate Interest Expense Of Rs.49,07,818/- Incurred Directly & Exclusively Towards Earning Aforesaid Interest Income.”

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate