“interest u/s 234A”

InterestSection 234ASection 234A1,483 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest u/s 234A is CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (247 ITR 209), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest u/s 234A

CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd.

247 ITR 209 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Interest under sections 234A and 234B cannot be levied mechanically when there is a reasonable cause for delay in payment or response to notices.

ACIT v. Hans Raj Gandhi

37 ITR 418 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to the adjustment of seized cash against their advance tax liability. Consequently, no interest under sections 234A or 234B can be charged if the department fails to respond to the assessee's request for such an adjustment.

Judgments citing interest u/s 234A

Mohanbhai Becharbhai Chauhan, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1570/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi V. Pandya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271FSection 272ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961: On facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. AO has grossly ... erred in levying interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B of the Act when no such interest is leviable. The interest levied by the Ld. AO should be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any grounds of appeal at the time

Aditi Thapar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

ITA 1273/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ArFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.7,16,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case

Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

well as in law, ld. CIT(A) has also erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground against charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act in respect above wrong, unjustified and unpredictable addition. (7) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify

Silgate Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

For Appellant: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR

Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

shares during the year. 4.Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C On merits, the Appellant denies its liability to the levy of penal interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C, hence the interest levied may be directed to be deleted. The Appellant submits that all the above grounds are without prejudice

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

full. 4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B, C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same

M/S R C Jewellers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-32 New Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 270A

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, 234B and 234C is illegal and without prejudice it is excessive.” 4. We next note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that

Hiteshbhai V Mahala, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-2, Valsad

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

ITA 23/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Hiteshbhai V. Mahala, Vs. The Ito, Vagan Faliya, Nana Pondha, Ward - 2, Valsad – 396126, Gujarat Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bafpm7489F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Parin Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

than taxing entire credit in bank accounts. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in upholding invocation of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D are unjustified. 7. Intimation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that are that

Prathiba Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1424/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 Prathiba Educational The Income Tax Officer, Society, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pin – 500 038 Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaatp4036B. Pin – 500 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Sanket Milind Joshi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

raised against addition on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A. Ground No.4 is raised against addition on levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Ground No.5 is raised against initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAC(1). 6.2. These grounds are taken up for discussion ... unexplained money holds good. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 1 to 6 stands dismissed. 7.6. Ground 7: Being charging of interest u/s 234A, B and C are mandatory and consequential, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.7 Ground 8. This ground relates to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAol

Shri V. Natarajan (Individual), Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक

Varadappan Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

Deepti Shreyas Talpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrideepti Shreyas Talpade Vs. Ito Ward 24(1)(5) 701, 7Th Floor, Dlh Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Enclave, 90’ Wide Dp Road, Piramal Chamber, Near Windmere Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpt6420L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in wrongly initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax[A] erred in dismissing

Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69B

circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in wrongly initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and also wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax[A] erred in dismissing

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

self-assessment payment before due date of filing of return for AY 2017-18 which deserves to be allowed in computation of interest u/s 234A. Therefore, we remit this issue also back to the AO with a direction that the AO shall give benefit of cash seized and available with ... department in calculation of interest and re-compute interest u/s 234A accordingly.” Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in case of Arun Bansal vs ACIT in ITA No.  2615/Del/2022 vide order dated 29.05.2023 held: “7. Undisputedly, the cash seized was in the possession of the department from the date of search itself

Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shilpaben Hiteshbhai Sakaria, Ito-1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Near Income Tax Office, Anavil Navyug Collage, Rander Road, Vs. Business Business Centre, Surat-395005. Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aqqps 4288 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, CA

Section 234ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

facts and circumstances of the case and law and circumstances of the case and law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming interest u/s 234A, 234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming interest u/s 234A, 234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming interest u/s 234A, 234B

Vinayak Pai, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2539/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Vinayak Ganpat Pai National Faceless Centre (Nfac), 1/11, Kika Mansion, 7 Kika Street, Mumbai Vs. Gulalwadi, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aqupp7055J (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Salot

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax Act for non-filing of income tax return for AY 2015-16. 7. The CIT(A) erred in confirming interest U/S 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee had filed his return

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

time of hearing of this appeal.” 12. Ground nos. 4 and 5 are consequential in nature, relating to charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act respectively. The AO will charge interest as per law. Ground no. 5 is partly allowed 13. Ground no. 6 relates

Akhilesh Singhal, Rishikesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

case, and addition of Rs.27, 86,019/- may kindly be deleted. 8. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B Rs.9, 29,664/- without recording the reason or direction is unlawful and uncalled for. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

notice u/s 148 and non-grant of opportunity under section 142(1), violating principles of natural justice. 6. That the enhancement of interest u/s 234A by order u/s 154 without issuing notice or hearing opportunity is arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the appellant was eligible for presumptive taxation under section ... Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [259 ITR 19 (SC)). Thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law. 5. That the enhancement of interest u/s 234A by order u/s 154 without issuing notice or hearing opportunity is arbitrary and unjustified. That the interest u/s 234A in the earlier demand notice u/s

Kailash Bhil, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 175/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

full. 6. 28,40,427/-: The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

compliance. Hence, the assessment order is bad in law and liable to be annulled 6. That the learned AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 2348, and 234C of the Act. which is not leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the same is liable