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

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

Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha, Ahmednagar vs. ` Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.76/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha, Prop: S.S. Construction, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aanpg5756C बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Patil सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Pune Dated 16.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “(1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Enhancing The Income Of The Appellant To Rs. 95,90,109 As Against The Income Of Rs. 67,41,080 Assessed By The Ld Ao & Rs.34,05,990 Returned By The Appellant. (2) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Issuing Enhancement Notice U/S 251(2) Of The It Act When The Of The Case Do Not Justify Any Such Enhancement. (3) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) In Not Accepting The Returned Income Of The Appellant & In Not Deleting The Various Additions Made By Ld Ao. (4) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Applying A G.P. Of 8% On The Total Receipts Including The Sub-Contractual Receipts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil
Section 234Section 251(2)