“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

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

alia, on the quantum, period, rate and method in which it has been calculated. 9) The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The Appellant craves for leave of this

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

Rs.40,14,67,454 for the purpose of computing the Book profit u/s 118JB The claim of the Appellant be accepted. 22. Interest under Section 234A: The ACIT erred in levying interest of Rs. 7.31,570 under section 234A without considering the fact that the Appellant had filed the Return

Shri Rajesh Sanwalchand Bafna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Total addition confirmed CIT (A) Rs. 350000+1 1,61,000/-. (3) The Income Tax Officer has erred in Law in Levying Interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C which is erred and bad in Law. (4) The income tax Officer erred in initiating Penalty proceeding under section

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

sake of clarity, which is reproduced below:- 54. The next two grounds in both the assessment years relate to levy and calculation of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C. As agreed by both the parties that similar ground has arisen in the case of Shri Sudhir S. Mehta

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

Soumya Ghosh, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Soumya Ghosh, C-1103, The Assistant Windmills Of Your Commissioner Of Mind, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Affpg0104B Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Delhi, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 90

violation of the principles of natural justice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined

Bsr Infratech India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

thus, was rightfully eligible to claim the TDS credit available on the same 14.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in levying & confirming interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the Appellant. 15.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer initiating

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

substantive in nature. GROUND RELATING TO INTEREST 5. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act of Rs.99,624/- and Rs.3,98,496/- respectively. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6377/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee pertaining to this issue is dismissed. 19. Insofar as the ground pertaining to levy of interest under section 234A of the Act is concerned, we deem it appropriate to remand this aspect to the file of AO for de novo adjudication after

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1334/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1333/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1331/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1330/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

assessee’s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground No. 5 raised in assessee’s appeal is pertaining to charging of interest under section 234A of the Act. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue to the file of AO for de novo adjudication after necessary

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 325/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194LSection 234ASection 234B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. ITA No.325/Mum./2022 without appreciating that the Appellant had filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section