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

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 356/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356& 338/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02&2006-07) Vs. M/S Eih Ltd. Dcit, Cir-8(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 1. Sq., Kolkata- 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 6898 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years2001-02 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Kolkata. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Ita No.338/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has The Power U/S 251 Of The Income Tax Act To Accept The Claim Of The Assessee For Amending The Return Except Otherwise Than By Filing A Revised Return. 2. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3.The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Theassessee Filed Its Return Of Fringe Benefits On 27.11.2006 Showing Value Of Fringe Benefit At Rs.8,28,82,508/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 115We Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, Notice U/S 115We(2) R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act, Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Claimed That Expenditure Of Rs.2,24,48,941/- Was Incurred On Uniform Of Employees On Office Duty Is Not Liable To Be Considered For M/S Eih Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate
Section 115WSection 251

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 338/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356& 338/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02&2006-07) Vs. M/S Eih Ltd. Dcit, Cir-8(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 1. Sq., Kolkata- 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 6898 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years2001-02 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Kolkata. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Ita No.338/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has The Power U/S 251 Of The Income Tax Act To Accept The Claim Of The Assessee For Amending The Return Except Otherwise Than By Filing A Revised Return. 2. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3.The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Theassessee Filed Its Return Of Fringe Benefits On 27.11.2006 Showing Value Of Fringe Benefit At Rs.8,28,82,508/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 115We Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, Notice U/S 115We(2) R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act, Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Claimed That Expenditure Of Rs.2,24,48,941/- Was Incurred On Uniform Of Employees On Office Duty Is Not Liable To Be Considered For M/S Eih Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate
Section 115WSection 251

Asst CIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3044/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3044/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Asst. Cit-15(1)(2), Bayer Croopsciences Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, Bayer House, Central Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 9651 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Co. No. 24/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3044/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) बनाम/ Bayer Croopsciences Ltd. Asst. Cit-15(1)(2), Mumbai-400 076 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari : Shri Paras Savla Assessee By Ms. Keerthiga Sharma सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 11.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 23.02.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05. 2

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 10(34)Section 143Section 147Section 154Section 220Section 234B