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

I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omkar Metal & Alloys Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 2119/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Omkar Metal & Alloys Corporation, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1114/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

M/S Snc Power Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am Assessment Year : 2007 – 08 M/S Snc Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Snc House, 4Th Floor, No. 7, Residency Road, Dcit Circle – 12 (3), Vs. (Old No. 9, Raja Ram Mohanroy Road) Bangalore Bangalore - 560025 Pan: Aajcs7901C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Chandrasekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S. Tamil Selvam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – Iii Bangalore Dated 31.10.2012 For A. Y. 2007 – 08. 2. In Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Synopsys Is Already Filed & This Appeal May Be Decided By Considering The Same. Learned Dr Of The Revenue Supported The Order Of Cit (A). 3. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions. We Find That Ground No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Are General & No Separate Adjudication Is Called For About These Two Grounds. As Per Ground No. 3, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is About Confirming Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 775,310/- Made By The Ao. In This Regard, In Para (C) Of The Synopsys, It Is Submitted That The Assessee Has Incurred An Expense Of Rs. 77,53,110/- As Wages In Respect Of A Turnover Of More Than Rs. 15 Crores & The Ao Made An Adhoc Disallowance Of Rs. 15 Lacs & Learned Cit (A) Confirmed Part

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrasekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Tamil Selvam, JCIT DR