“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

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in levying Assessment year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 17 interest under section 234A of the Act of INR 3,344 even though Company has filed the return of income within due date as per section

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

computer software, and held that such income shall not taxable in the hands of the non- resident, 2.7. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 2.8. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent

Rajkumar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 35(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1745/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerajkumar Sharma V. Acit – 35(2) 52, Acharya Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan Waman Tukaram Patil Marg Bandra Kurla Complex Deonar, Mumbai - 400088 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aayps0538H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinayak Pandya Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak PandyaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 234ASection 68

material available on records. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the ground of appeal disputing the Charging of Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3 Rajkumar Sharma 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 92C

Private Limited certain product from its existing market support agreement is in the course of normal business activities of the Appellant. Charge of interest under section 234A of the Act 20. erred in charging interest of Rs 7,94,439 under section 234A of the Act. Charge of interest under ... 27/11/2015, whereas due date prescribed for filing return of income under section 139 (1) during relevant assessment year was 30/11/2015 and therefore interest under section 234A has been wrongly levied. Both the Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass 42 (India) Private Limited parties agreed that

Sri. H.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging. the interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section

Sri. M.J. Siwani, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Sri. H.S. Ningaiah, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 33/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 234Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234A, 234 B and 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 144C

provisions of Section 92C(2) of the Act. General Grounds 23. The learned AO has erred. in law and in facts, by levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act: Page 5 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 726/Bang/2017 24. The learned AO erred

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1321/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, 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 & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 68

credit in view of section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

that, the amount so determined is fully recoverable from the payer of the sum in India. 8. The lower authorities erred in levying interest under section 234A of the IT Act in the case of the Appellant, as the Appellant was not required to file a tax return in India

M/S Parthiv Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4505/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Parthiv Enterprises, Ito-17(2)(5), 83 Ramesh Bhuvan Nakhoda Room No.123-A, 1St Floor, Street, Vs. Pydhonie, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaefp8201A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amar Jit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Interest Free Loans Of Rs.3,35,23,178/- Out Of Rs.12,19,54,637/- & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same As Loans Taken For Non-Business Purposes. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing & Adding The Proportionate Interest Paid Of Rs.22,24,357/- Out Of The Total Interest Paid Of Rs.80,92,036/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Added The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non Business Purpose. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of The Genuine Loan Received From The Mis K.C. Kapadia & Sons(P) Ltd Of Rs.39,34,639/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee & Thereby Erred In Treating The Same For Non-Business Purpose.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. A.R

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

treating the same for non-business purpose. 2 M/s. Parthiv Enterprises 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding

Shri. Pravin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4540/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain The Income Tax Officer, Office No.6, Jewel Co-Op Society Ward 18(2)(5) Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 44/46, Dhanji Vs. Earnest House Ncpa Marg Street, Mumbai-400 003 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacpj5627L

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

relied upon, is liable to be annulled. Shri Pravin Futarmal Jain, AY 10-11 6. The learned assessing officer erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the ground

B. Ravikuamr Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 603/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153ASection 154Section 156Section 234ASection 250

assessment order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in levying the interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

dismissed as not pressed. 46. The issue arising in ground no.9, raised in assessee’s appeal is with regard to levy of interest under section 234A of the Act. 47. As per the assessee, the return of income was filed on 27.11.2015, i.e., before the statutory due date for filing ... return of income and thus interest under section 234A of the Act has been erroneously levied by the Revenue. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to verify the date of filing of return of income and in case it is found that