“interest u/s 234A”

InterestSection 234ASection 234A1,483 judgments

DE vs. THAN TRUST,VADODARAVS.THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

alternative, Ld. NFAC ought to have give direction to compute income on commercial principle and real income theory. 6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified.” Devsthan Trust vs. ITO Asst.Year–2016-17 3. The assessee is a trust and registered under Section

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

thereby raising additional demand at Rs 26,38.512/- is improper, unjust and deserves to be cancelled that charging of interest u/s 234A, 2348 & u/s 234C totallingRs 7,72,730/- is not correct & same be cancelled. 3. THAT any other ground/s that may be raised at the time of hearing

ABDHI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1518/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 40A(3)Section 68

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified. 8. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are unjustified. Abdhi Jewels Private Limited Vs. ITO, AY- 2017-18 3 5. The first ground taken by the assessee pertains to addition

BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILL, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-3 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1350/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

For Appellant: \nSh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

/NFAC- New Delhi further erred in law as well as on the facts of the\ncase in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The\nappellant to tally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so\ncharged, being contrary to the provisions

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

NAVDEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 13, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

SHANTI DEVI JAIN MEMORIAL TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Page 2 of 7 M/s Shanti Devi Jain Memorial Trust 8. That the interest U/s 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same

KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

ITA 3061/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'SMC' BENCH, BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI

KRISHNA VENKAPPA SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. JAO WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 7256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarkrishna Venkappa Shetty Vs. Jao Ward 2(1), Thane Unique Heights B Wing, 706 Thane - 400602 Poonam Garden, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road, Thane -401107 Pan/Gir No. Bntps8180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Haresh Joshi Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 01.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Faceless Assessing Unit Has Erred In Making Addition Of Bogus Purchase Of Rs.39,37,500/- U/S 69C Of The Act In Gross Violation Of The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made There Under.

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69C

that notice u/s 148 to be issued by Faceless Unit from the 1st notice itself. 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.2,17,474/-in gross violation of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules there under. 4. The Assessment Unit

PIONEER PANEL PRODUCTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4866/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpioneer Panel Products, Vs. Ito, C/O. Anil Jain, Dd & Co, 611, Ward-3, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kg, Rohtak Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfp2257C

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer has erred in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B is illegal and without prejudice it is excessive. 8. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3700/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

u/s 9(1)(vii) of the income tax act 1961 as well\nas per Article 12 (4)(b) of india-USA DTAA. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B,\n234C & 234D as applicable. Since the assessee has misreported its income, I\nconsider it a fit case to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

RAJENDRAN PALANIVELU,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

ITA 3940/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3940/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 18.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)

erred in confirming the above additions merely out of conjectures, surmises, and suspicions. 10. For that, the appellant objects to the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C. 11. The above grounds are taken without prejudice to one another. For these grounds and such other grounds that

SUNIL SURESH RANE,DOMBIVLI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsunil Suresh Rane Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 301 Amrita, Apts, Rajaji Kautilya Bhawan C41- Path Lane 43, Avenue 3, Near No.4 Dombivli Videsh Bhavan, G Block Mumbai - 421201 Bkc, Gilban Area, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Abtpr2589P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Aakash Parekh (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Ground No. 1: Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

hence, the said addition as well as demand may please be deleted and set aside. 10. Ground No. 10: Failure to Adjudicate on Interest u/s 234A & 234B On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground ... erred in levying interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the Act, and the same may please be deleted. 11. Ground No. 11: Failure to Adjudicate on Penalty Proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

interest u/s 2344, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The assessee prays that the ld. AO be directed to delete/appropriately reduce the interest u/s 234A. 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JAIKISHIN OMPRAKASH PAHUJA,GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 8893/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

npayments are made from banking channels.\n6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nAO erred in charging interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and\ninitiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F.\n7. In the facts and circumstances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

nthe limited purpose of verification and recomputation. The Ld. AO shall examine\nthe date of filing of the return and recompute the interest U/s 234A, if any, in\naccordance with law. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.\nThe levy of interest under section 234B & 234D are consequential

Showing 1–20 of 1,483 · Page 1 of 75

...