“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

Apl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

assessee is not pressing ground no. (iii) relating to interest from Bank. The Ground No. (vi) relates to interest under section 234A, 234B & 234D, it is consequential. The other grounds raised in the appeal are general in nature. 41. The ld. DR fairly admitted that the primary issues raised

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Apl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

appellant in AY 2015-16 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioher of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ... facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies. Interest under Section 234A of the Act: 11. erred in erroneously levying interest of INR 6,27,750 under section 234A of the Act while completely disregarding

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

found correct, the assessee should be given credit for brought forward of losses. 37. Ground Nos.33 to 34 with regard to charge of interest under section 234A, 234B is purely consequential. Learned Counsel for the assessee however made a prayer that the charging of interest under section 234E

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Appellant in pricing its transactions with its Associated Enterprises and could be verified using a working capital adjustment. 7. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 7.1. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 17,80,158 under section 234A of the Act, despite

Global Hospitality Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7736/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 9

with the provisions of law. As a result, additional ground No. 8 is allowed for statistical purpose. 17. Further, as regards levy of interest under section 234A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is directed to carry out necessary verification whether the return of income was filed by the assessee ... within time and levy interest under section 234A of the Act, in case of delay, in accordance with law. Further, as regards levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, it was submitted that taxes were fully withheld at source and therefore levy of interest under section 234B

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 5. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 5.1. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 96,733 under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant furnishing return of income

Centroid Capital Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2182/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Centroid Capital Private Limited, Ito-9(2)(2), 8, Ajanta, Veera Desai Road, Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Andheri (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4546 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR

Section 250Section 69

liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are leviable. the same are leviable

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

source of Rs.39,43,015 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 23. Erred in law and in facts by levying interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the Act. 24. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. Each ... No.21, 22 & 23 challenging additions under section 36(1)(va) and non granting of credit of taxes deducted at source and levying of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are determined as under: 12 M/s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘ASOL’) Ground No.21: 19. AO/CIT(A) made

Shri. Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 319/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Chirag R. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 31(1)(3) 801, Laxmi Villa, Road No. 3 Kautilya Bhavan Plot No. 281, Jawahar Nagar G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Near Suvidha Hospital Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Avqps7888H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69C

whose statements are relied upon, is liable to be annulled. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 6. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under the Act. The Appellant prays

Shri. Harman H Baweja, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7628/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Section 147Section 234ASection 57

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing, it was noticed that the impugned order of the learned

Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(2) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 250/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, Income Tax Officer, 18(2)(5), Office No. 6, Jewel Co-Op. Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Vs. Nariman Point, Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003 Pan No. Aacpj 5627 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

without providing cross examination of persons whose statements are relied upon, is liable to be annulled. The learned assessing officer erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

M/S. L G Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2412/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, DR

Section 234ASection 92CSection 92E

allowing appropriate adjustment towards the risk difference between the Appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies. II. Corporate Tax Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act – INR 5,32,362 17. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act amounting ... date of filing the return of income for Assessment year 2015-16 i.e. 30 November 2015 and accordingly, any levy of interest under section 234A of the Act is unwarranted.” 2. The assessee raised additional grounds with regard to non- granting of deduction towards payment of educational cess on income