“interest under section 234A”

InterestSection 234ASection 234A1,249 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest under section 234A is CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1), cited in 452 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest under section 234A

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court

452

citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT

98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court

185

citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

Karanvir Singh Gossal v. CIT

349 ITR 692 · 2012 · Supreme Court

158

citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision establishes principles or grounds for seeking a waiver of mandatory interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.

215 Taxmann 108 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The provision of an extended credit period or non-charging of interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B(1) and requires separate benchmarking at arm's length, even retrospectively due to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment.

Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO

409 ITR 567 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act is barred if the issue in question is already pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), as per Explanation 1(c) to Section 263.

DIT v. Mitshubishi Corporation

130 Taxmann.com 276 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision in DIT Vs. Mitshubishi Corporation covers the chargeability of interest under section 234B of the Act.

Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT

324 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

This case establishes that merely having sufficient interest-free own funds does not automatically prevent interest disallowance on interest-free advances; the assessee must affirmatively prove the business or commercial expediency of such advances.

Dr. Prannoy Roy v. Commissioner of Income-tax

254 ITR 755 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest under Section 234A cannot be charged when tax has been paid, even if the return of income is filed belatedly, as such interest is compensatory and not penal in nature and only applies if there is a loss caused to the revenue.

Judgments citing interest under section 234A

Altico Capital India Limited, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A) Vide Its Order, Dated 13/12/2022. Now The Appellant Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Aforesaid Order Of The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Snayogita Nagpal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 205Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Altico

Omvir Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Omvir Mehta, Vs Ito, B-133, Mehta Niwas, Opp. Sec-4, Ward-3(2), Surya Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122001. Pan-Amdpm0018K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. AO has erred in law as much as in fact in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. That there is no mentioned of charging of interest in the body of the assessment order

We Are Voices Entertainment Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234ASection 270A

demand. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has erred

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. Dycit (It)Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 523/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

learned DCIT/DRP erred in not granting TDS Credit of Rs. 3,81,45,216/- 5) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in charging interest under section 234A of Rs.1,14,88,793/- 6) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in charging interest under section 234B of Rs.53,99,73,271/- 2019-20 Taxability

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

Meenu Ajay Pathak, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.- 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

under section 69C of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are not leviable. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete, rescind ... view of aforesaid findings needs no separate adjudication. 15. Ground No. 5, raised in assessee’s appeal pertaining to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C is consequential and therefore is accordingly dismissed. Meenu Ajay Pathak ITA no.155/Mum./2023 16. In the result, the appeal

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/MUM/2022[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)

Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

learned Assessing Officer revised the income, directed to give credit for tax paid and also directed to charge interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C and 220(2) of the Act. 05. Similarly, for A.Y. 1992-92, on almost identical facts, the total income of the assessee was assessed ... under Section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act on 20th November, 2017. The learned Assessing Officer also directed to charge interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C and 220(2) of the Act. 06. Similarly, for A.Y. 1993-94, the assessment under Section 143(3) read with

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2389/MUM/2022[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)

Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2388/MUM/2022[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)

Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

Planetcast International Pte.Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, Circle1(1)(1) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizaya Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Officer is directed to delete the addition. This ground is allowed. 61. In ground Nos. 12 & 13, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. This issue, being consequential in nature, does not require specific adjudication. 62. In ground No. 14, the assessee

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

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

ITA 1763/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT DR

Section 43BSection 92C

allowed. OTHER GROUNDS 22. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act. 23. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Erred in levying interest under Section 115P of the Act amounting to Rs.265,78,94,400 36. Erred in levying interest under Section 234A Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings 37. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(IXC) of the Act. Each

Rockwell Automation Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1638/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadrockwell Automation India Private Acit, Circle 19(1), Limited, Vs. Delhi. 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

instead of INR 31,476,859. General Grounds 11. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act in the assessment order of AY 2017-18 12. On facts

Varunkumar Tejmal Jain, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 396/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Varunkumar Tejmal Jain, I.T.O., 1205, Tower No. 2, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Vrajbhumi Complex, Parvat Patiya, Surat. Surat-395010. E-Mail-Gandhihimanshu92@Yahoo.In Pan No. Aghpj 1016 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

verify and allow the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Incorrect computation of interest u/s.234A 22. The Assessing Officer has levied interest under section 234A for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year ... Therefore there is merit in the submission of the ld AR that the levy of interest u/s.234A is not warranted since the interest under section 234A is levied for delay in furnishing the return of income. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to verify and delete the interest after giving

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

ITA 4098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. RiddhiFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the Learned AO in interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

Appellant's TP documentation, and the addition made on account of the above grounds should be deleted. 5. Charge of interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act. 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in charging interest under ... section 234A and 2348 of the Act. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to delete the interest under section 234A of the Act. 6. Penalty Proceeding under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act 1961 should be dropped