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

Vindhya Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 131/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvindhya Trust, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49 (1), B – 60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Delhi. Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 028. (Pan : Aaatv0303K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahender Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 12.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 - Rate Of Tax: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Upholding Levy Of Tax At Flat Rate Of30%, Instead Of Normal Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of The Appellant. The Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons (Aop)/Charitable Trust Not Claiming Benefits Of Section 11 Of The Act & Is Liable To Pay Tax At The Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of An Individual, Etc. The Appellant Prays That The Learned Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute

For Appellant: Shri Mahender Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 234BSection 234C

Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1060/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1060/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani The Acit बनाम/ Panchmukhi Mahadev Pole Circle-3(1) V/S. Opp. Jubilee Baug Vadodara – 390 007 Raopura Vadodara – 390 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavpt 5712 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) ("( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/03/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 68