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

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

Mahadevaiah Mdabal Kempaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1173/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17 Mahadevaiah Madabal Kempaiah No.139, “Nemmadi” 2Nd Main Road Health Layout Ito Annapoorneshwarinagar Ward-3(3)(1) Vs. Bengaluru 560 091 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No.Angpk1135M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Akta Jain B., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac Dated 24.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner Passed. & The Impugned Order As Passed Being Bad In Law Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Passing The Impugned Order In The Manner Passed. The Impugned Order Having Been Passed Without Hearing The Appellant & In Total Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Is Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio & Is Liable To Be Quashed. Mahadevaiah Madabal Kempaiah, Bengaluru Page 2 Of 4 3. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Order As Passed By Income Tax Officer In Taxing A Sum Of Rs. 1,52,55,923/- As Income From Capital Gains By Holding That The Appellant Had Sold Not An Agricultural Land But An Industrially Converted Land. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Have Not Been Appreciated By The Lower Authorities. On Proper Appreciation, It Would Be Clear That What Was Transferred By The Appellant Was An Agricultural Land Which Was Not A Capital Asset & Therefore, Gain On Such Land Not Assessable To Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Akta Jain B., D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 54B