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

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