Section 234D of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.426

Section 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 426 (Interest on excess refund) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 426 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 234D is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 2,105 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234D

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.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
339 ITR 632 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

No substantial question of law arises regarding a subsidy granted for setting up a new industrial unit in a backward area for employment generation, as held by the Bombay High Court. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.

Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.
43 Taxmann.com 396 · 2014 · High Court
214
citing judgments

Employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI, if paid by the assessee before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is an allowable deduction under section 43B. No distinction is drawn between employer's and employee's contributions for the purpose of section 43B.

DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd.
346 ITR 504 · 2012 · High Court
171
citing judgments

For fees for technical services to be taxable under a tax treaty's 'make available' clause, a transfer of technology enabling the recipient to independently perform the service in the future is necessary, beyond mere service rendition. The case also clarifies that re-insurance services do not constitute 'imparting' of information taxable as royalty.

Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
87 ITR 542 · 1973 · Supreme Court
155
citing judgments

Indirect tax components, such as sales tax, are included when calculating gross turnover or sales receipts for determining business income. Deductions relating to these taxes are subject to the provisions of Section 43B, requiring actual payment for deductibility.

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.
78 Taxmann.com 88 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

A Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) must adhere to prescribed methods under Section 92C for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP); an ALP determination at Nil or an adjustment using the 'Other Method' is unsustainable without proper comparability analysis. The TPO's jurisdiction is confined to ALP determination, respecting the commercial expediency of the assessee's business strategy, such as shared advertisement expenditure.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Steria (India) Ltd. v. CIT
386 ITR 390 · 2016 · High Court
83
citing judgments

Managerial services are not considered 'fees for included services' under Article 13(4) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, thus payments for such services are not taxable as FTS under the treaty.

Judgments on Section 234D

Ramabhai Dhudabhai Patel, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Ramabhai Dhudabhai Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1, Vs. Vardhman Complex, B/H. Palanpur Bhanshali Trust, College Road, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat, 385535 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apkpp2715C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Manthan Khokhani, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2024 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 17.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That No Return Of Income For A.Y. 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee. It Transpired That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.19,29,021/- In Rbl Bank Ltd., Deesa Branch, Deesa During The Demonetization Period. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As Operation Clean Money (‘Omc’)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234Section 69A

M/S. Kodava Education Society, Ponnampet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 405/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.405/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel The Dy.Cit D-41, Sahjanand Apartment बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Nr. Sterling Hospital Ahmedabad V/S. Gurukul Road,Memnagar Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ayvpp 7593 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay H. Patel, Ar (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 20/12/2018, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28/12/2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, AR (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 68Section 69A