Section 234C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.425

Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 425 (Interest for deferment of advance tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 425 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 234C is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 6,043 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234C

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.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

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).

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
452
citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

Judgments on Section 234C

J K Associates, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1200/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1200/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ J K Associates Ito Vikram Plaza, Nr. Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Vishwakarma Mandir, Chandlodia, Ahmedabad - 382481 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfj9737G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 25/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 03.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2017-18. An Information Was Received By The Ao That The Assessee Firm Had Purchased Immovable Property Of Rs.1 Crore During The F.Y. 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y. 2017-18. In The Absence Of Any Return Filed By The Assessee, The Source Of Investment By The Assesse In The Immovable Property Remained Unexplained. Therefore, The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 146/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

M/S Auto King, Allahabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.145, 146/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur Khas, Mauaima, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19 Vide Separate Orders Dated 31.07.2024. As The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Same, The Same Are Taken Up For Disposal By Way Of Common Order. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 145/Alld/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Holding That The Appellant Is Not Keen To Pursue The Appeal Without Giving An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Giving Any Finding On The Statement Of Facts As Filed Along With Memo Of Appeal. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S Auto King

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

Gursharan Kaur, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gursharan Kaur Ito Ward 24 (1)(1) A-301, Skylark Chs, Opp. Vikram Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – Petrol Pump A Bunglows Juhu Versova Vs. 400012. Link Road, 4 Bunglow Andheri West Mumbai -400 053 Pan/Gir No. Bkopk8032M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Tejas Chandrana Respondent By : Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Order Passed By Central Processing Center ("Cpc") U/S 154 Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Cpc Of Denying Relief U/S 90/90A Due To Late Filing Of Form 67. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Levy Of Interest U/S. 234B & 234C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri. Tejas ChandranaFor Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90