← All Phrases

“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
21
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
14
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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Zala Hardattsinh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(2) Present Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2134/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

facts of the assessee the provision of section 115BBE are submitted to be not applicable. 5. On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A and 234B ought to have been levied. 6. On the facts, no such addition of Rs. 22,65,717/- u/s 69A for cash deposit

Shaileshkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(2) (Now DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 6Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

appellant over and above 12 percent to 5 parties is hereby deleted. 5.4 Ground 4, 5 and 6 are against levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charge of interest in mandatory and consequential and the AO is therefore directed to rework the interest

Jindal Commodities, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(2), Kolkata

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2905/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

opportunity of being heard considering the reasonable cause for such delay. 4. For that the Ld. AO erred in making excessive levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B and in sustaining additions not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the entire addition deserves to be deleted

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7171/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.3,97,946/- d. Ground 5-Non-grant of S. A Tax Credit of Rs. 9,870/- e. Ground 6 - Wrong charging of interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2,22,662/- f. Ground 7- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 2. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought ... reflected in Form 26AS. 2. The credit for Self-assessment tax of Rs. 9,870/- requires to be granted. VIII. WRONG CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF Rs. 2.22.662/- 1. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground of wrong charging of interest u/s 234A

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.3,97,946/- d. Ground 5-Non-grant of S. A Tax Credit of Rs. 9,870/- e. Ground 6 - Wrong charging of interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2,22,662/- f. Ground 7- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 2. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought ... reflected in Form 26AS. 2. The credit for Self-assessment tax of Rs. 9,870/- requires to be granted. VIII. WRONG CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF Rs. 2.22.662/- 1. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground of wrong charging of interest u/s 234A

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7169/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.3,97,946/- d. Ground 5-Non-grant of S. A Tax Credit of Rs. 9,870/- e. Ground 6 - Wrong charging of interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2,22,662/- f. Ground 7- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 2. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought ... reflected in Form 26AS. 2. The credit for Self-assessment tax of Rs. 9,870/- requires to be granted. VIII. WRONG CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF Rs. 2.22.662/- 1. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground of wrong charging of interest u/s 234A

Arthakalash Magasvargiya Karmachari Sahakari Path Swanstha Limited, Dhamangaon vs. ITO Ward-1, Amravati

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

ITA 756/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DembleFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

file of Ld. A.O. 6. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. The Assessee craves leave to, add to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind

Nandita Shaunak Munshaw, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1969/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 68

u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return

Ruchi Stock & Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7653/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A(1)

opportunity to cross-examine the statements of the said persons on whom the Assessing Officer heavily relied. 2) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and also initiated penalty u/s 270A(1). 3) In the facts and the circumstances of the case

Kca Co Operative Cerdit Society, Mumbai vs. Mum-(197)(91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6585/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 8o

assessee preferred appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1), challenging the disallowance of deduction u/s 8o0P(2)(d) and consequential levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C. 4. It was noted that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) had been filed belatedly, and condonation of delay had been sought

Jagdeep Singh Dhanoa, United Arab vs. Income Tax Officer It 2(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1681/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarjagdeep Singh Dhanoa Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8202, 23 Marina, Po Pox It (2)(1), Mumbai 73392, Dubai Marina Dubai 1724, 17Th Floor, Air Ar, Foreign, India Building, United Arab Emirates- Nariman Point, 73392 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadpd4843R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 26.04.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) (1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

Error in calculation of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act: 4.1 The Ld. AO had erred in calculating the interest u/s 234A of the Act, for delay in furnishing of return, considering the due date for the return of income for the Appellant as 31 July

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

satisfied and the addition made in Intimation u/s 143(1) be deleted. These grounds of appeal are therefore allowed. As regard charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C, it is to be stated that such interest are mandatory and consequential on determination of assessed income. If after allowing exemption

Pradeep Sharma, Sagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Katni

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati, Anjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1), 272A(1) (d) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C,234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified

Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.551/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Plot No.762, Gidc, Phase-2, बनाम/ Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Dared, Jamnagar-361 004 Vs. Chamber Of Commerce Hall, Jamnagar- Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361 001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aflpn 8072 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Manek, Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 12.05.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Reopening Of Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Manek, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxed and not the entire deposits. 9. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming initiation of penalty

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified