“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

Aalok Deep Entertainments Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 436/IND/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Aalok Deep Entertainments Ito-1(1) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal G-2/119A, Gulmohur Colony, बनाम/ Trilanga Road, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aafca8883P Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B is unlawful and without jurisdiction and therefore be cancelled.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-company filed

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kmc Constructions Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

ground of appeal no-2 not adjudicated. 6. 7. In grounds no-6 the appellant has alleged that Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234A Rs.17,68,113/- and 234B Rs.6,71,88,294/-.It is noted that the interest u/s 234A & 234B are consequential in nature, hence dismissed

Air Con Systems(India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5325/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.5325/Del/2024\n(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21)\n\nM/s Air Con Systems (India)\nPvt. Ltd.\nA-2/40F/F, Safdarjung\nDevelopment Area,\nGreen Park Market,\nSouth West Delhi-110016.\nPAN-AAACA9931D\n(Appellant)\n\nDCIT,\nCentral Circle-30,\nVs. New Delhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Mayank Patawarai, Adv.\nDepartment by\nShri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n15/07/2025\nDate of Pronouncem

Section 144Section 153ASection 271ASection 69A

delete the addition and the ground No.1 to 3 are thus allowed. 12. Ground No.4 is with respect to the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B which are consequential in nature and ground No.5 with respect of initiation of penalty proceedings which is premature. AIR Con Systems (India

Kanhaiya Krushi Kendra, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

account of undisclosed cash credits is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Interest u/s 234A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax act 1961 being consequential in nature needs to be deleted. 5) Assessee craves leave

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 38/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

were incurred for the welfare of primary collectors of Kendu Leaves. As such the addition must be deleted. CO No.03/Ran/19 5. For that interest u/s 234A and 2348 is to be charged on returned income and not on assessed income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

Ajay Kumar, Saran, Bihar vs. ITO, Chapra

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

ITA 402/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

which is wholly arbitrary and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that, the demand made on account of interest u/s 234A and 234B is unsustainable in law being mechanical and without the sanction of law. 8. For that, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Bharuch (Currently, ITO Ward 1(1) Bharuch), Bharuch

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

ITA 630/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Ito Ward 1(4) Bharuch Kadri Travel, Near Water Tank, At (Currently, Ito Ward 1(1) & Post Zanor, Vs. Bharuch), Bharuch-392210. Income Tax Office, Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Afspp 6042 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Krutarth Desai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

deleted entirely 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. AO has erred in fact and in law in levying penal interest u/s 234A 2 Abdul Ibrahim Patel and 234B of the Act totalling to Rs.2,63,800/- which deserves to be deleted in toto

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

JAIPUR not allow the cost of construction. The assessee new further got the valuation done of such construction. 2. That the AO levied interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.92,650/- and interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.1,01,370/- for the assessment year 2012-13. Whereas since there

Dai Chand, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

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

ITA 936/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring

Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 8/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.08/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 11-2-323-Cross Bazaar, Ward-7(1), Ghat, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500004. Pan: Aaqph8462F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, CAFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69A

Assessee. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed Ld. by AO initiating penalty u/s 271AAC and imputing interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above, it is humbly prayed that the matter be remanded

Mohd Gulzar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 4097/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

surmises. 7 10. That, the AO had erred in initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 11. That interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 2340 of the Act has been wrongly and illegally charged and has been incorrectly computed.” 6. At the time of hearing

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and directed charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 2.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer Sitapur New, Sitapur

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

ITA 103/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 69Section 69A

Thus the action of Learned Assessing Officer is against the principal of natural justice. 6- The Learned Assessing Officer had erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7- The Learned Assessing Officer had erred in not taking the cognizance

Jitendrabhai Bhagvanbhai Dalvadi, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

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

Section 124Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 2 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 3. The assessee

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

full. 3. 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

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

4712/Mum/2023 Ay 2021-22 Shell International Petroleum company Limited the computation sheet dt. 31.10.2023, he has again added interest u/s 234A. It has been explained the due date of filing of returns had been extended during COVID pandemic and therefore, no interest u/s 234A was chargeable in this case ... assessee had also filed a rectification application on 14/03/2024 which is still pending. We, accordingly direct Ld.AO to delete the interest u/s 234A wrongly charged in the computation sheet. 12. Ground No. 15 & 16: Interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act This is a consequential issue and Ld.AO is directed

Bansi Lal Kumhar, Udaipur vs. ACIT Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

same is 6. The Id. 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

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

land and its Cost Inflation Index is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 11. For that the charge of interest u/s 234A at Rs. 5,21,529/- and u/s 234B at Rs. 7,57,058/- is arbitrary and unjustified. The interest as charged and included

Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Fagi vs. ITO Exemption Ward - 1, Jaipur

ITA 92/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250

deleted in full. 4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C.The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions