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

Sunil C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 59/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.59/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Mr. Sunil C. Shah, Ito-Wd 21(3)(2) A/402, Odessy-1 C-11, Pratyaksha Kar Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Bandra Hiranandani Garden, Powai- Mumbai-400076. Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfps0623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan L. Vajani Revenue By: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.10.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing The Commission Paid Of Rs.11,40,008/- & It'S Reasonableness To Various Parties On Sales & Making Charges. The Ld. A.O Has Not Appreciated The Commission Paid Is Vital For

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Dinesh R. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Dismissed

ITA 1876/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1876/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dinesh R. Shah (Legal बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(3)(2), Matru Heir Of Late Shri Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Rugnathmal A. Shah), 29, Mumbai-400007. Trimbak, Parshuram Street, 5Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aktps4623G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. N. Hemlatha (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Erred In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14SSection 234A