“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

Sohil Abdulkadarbhai Pirwani, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 817/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesohil Abdulkadarbhai Pirwani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 31 Adamjinagar Nari Cross Ward-1(8), Road, Bhavnagar. Vartej Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar-364002. Gujarat. [Pan :Ahopp6706 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 69C

u/s 69C of the act 6. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law by passing the order for levied of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D of the act. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by Intimating to impose the penalty u/s

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

other sources. 4. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered submission of the appellant and ought to have deleted the disallowance. 5. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is unjustified.” 6. Shri Parin Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee

Sika Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4817/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. A/R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dtd. 20.12.2012 i.e. Rs.19,47,890/-. Give credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. Interest u/s 234A, 234B,234C and 234D is charged as per law.” 5. The directions of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra) were very specific where

Sika Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4816/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. A/R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153

Kansara Popatlal Tibhovandas Metal Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above

ITA 1405/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

facts in passing order on 03.07.2025 prior to last date of submission i.e. 08.07.2025 granted in notice of hearing. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpuravatha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 718/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

raised by the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which 6 Mohol Nagari Sahakri Patpuravatha Sanstha Maryadit was against charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the IT Act. 11. This time the Revenue being the aggrieved party is in appeal against the above 1st appellate order

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpuravatha Sastha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 717/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvagha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 695/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1332/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1331/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. Mohol Nagari Sahakari Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Mohol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1146/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

Saket Agarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -45(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6116/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete ... partly allowed as discussed above. 26. Ground of appeal No.7 raised by the assessee is with respect to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Since levy of interest is mandatory and is consequential in nature, the AO is directed to charge interest u/s 234A

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

full. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act made by the AO. The interest so charged/withdrawn ... 115BBE of the Act. Hence, the entire impugned additions are bad in law and deserves to be deleted.” GOA-4 Charging of Interest u/s 234A & 234C: is consequential and kindly be decided accordingly. The above submissions have been made based on the instructions and the information provided of/by the client

Nanasaheb Bhagawan Sasar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 722/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ASection 234A

considered the income as per return of income filed earlier but denied the proportionate TDS credit of Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly calculated interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. In response section 143(1) intimation order, the assessee filed rectified return of income on 03.03.2023 wherein ... income is considered as per the return of income, however, proportionate TDS credit of Rs.6,50,000/- has not been given and accordingly interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is calculated. 3. Aggrieved by such rectification order passed by the Ld. AO/CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 626/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

expenses incurred to earned that income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act should be deleted as the said provision are not applicable to the facts of this case

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 625/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 17. With regard to Ground no. 3 and 4 which pertains to levying of the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act as well as initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act, in our view our above findings on Ground

M/S Rpj Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Maihar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Satna

ITA 86/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 43B

basis of orders of appellate authorities in the case of assessee for past assessment years. 7. The assessee denies liabilities to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961, Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 vs. M/S Rpj Minerals Private Ltd., Satna

ITA 154/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 43B

Rajhans Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mogalpura vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1773/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1773/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajhans Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S. Ward-2, Pune. 1, Mogalpura, Sangamner, Tal-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 422605. Pan: Aaaar3555J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.154 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and hence, the same may please be deleted. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case