“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

Shruthi Kishore, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru

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

ITA 550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69ASection 80T

necessary inquiries and verifications required as per law before passing fresh assessment order. With respect to ground no 10 related to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B it is hold that these provisions are attracted automatically once additions are made by the AO. However since the assessment is set aside

Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 1342/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1342/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Ito, Plot No.97, Laxmi Society, Gajera Circle – 3(3)(3), School Road,Behind Gajera School, Surat Katargam, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1060/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1060/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani The Acit बनाम/ Panchmukhi Mahadev Pole Circle-3(1) V/S. Opp. Jubilee Baug Vadodara – 390 007 Raopura Vadodara – 390 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavpt 5712 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) ("( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/03/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ SMC,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2177/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2177/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &

Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 80G

dated 21.10.2021 passed by Dy.CIT Exemption Aurangabad on 21.10.2021 in as much as he did not consider facts that the JAO has charged interest u/s 234A and 234B without assuming the Jurisdiction even though, the mistake was not apparent from record to be rectified u/s 154 of the Income ... circumstance previeling in the case, the ld. CIT A (NFAC), has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal in regard to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B of the Income Tax Act that, the JAO DCIT Exemption has charged interest by passing the order u/s 154 even though there

Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 2218/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia Dcit – Cc-3, Thane 60/100, New Mavji Compound Behind Vs Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ratan, Talkies Narpoli Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302. Thane West, [Pan No. Afhpd2871E] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234A, 2348 & 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 253/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.253/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) बनाम Shop No. 7, Hairline Unisex Salon Rajkot Amin Marg, Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Rajkot Gujarat 360001 Pan : Aespr4119R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 27.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed Without Serving The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed U/S 144(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Bhavinshaben Hareshbhai Rathodi

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E0 Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2176/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2176/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. 0 Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &

Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

dated 21.10.2021 passed by Dy.CIT Exemption Aurangabad in as much as he did not consider facts that the JAO has charged interest u/s 234A and 234B without assuming the Jurisdiction even though, the mistake was not apparent from record to be rectified u/s 154 of the Income ... circumstance previeling in the case, the ld. CIT A (NFAC), has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal in regard to charging of interest u/s 234A,234B of the Income-tax Act that, the JAO DCIT Exemption has charged interest by passing the order u/s 154 even though there

Keval Kanubhai Korat L/H of Kanubhai Bhikhabhai Korat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

ITA 31/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Mandir Shri Falodi Mata Ji Maharaj Samiti, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Kota

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

ITA 421/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru’ V.C.)

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

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 may kindly

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. 28. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee is with regard to levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. 29. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The claim of the assessee is that

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3472/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

ITA No.3472 & 5475/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

sustained. Consequently, the ground no 1 and 2 of the assessee stands dismissed. 25. Ground no 3 regarding interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6158/DEL/2017 is dismissed. The order is pronounced

Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO 6(4 ) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 937/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 288Section 68Section 69C

calculate tax on additions u/s 68 & 69C as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D & 244A(3) if applicable as per rules. ITNS-150 issued, which is forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice

Rupa Maheshkumar Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 994/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblerupa Maheshkumar Gandhi, Income Tax Officer, Vs. D-404, Dharnidhar Tower, Ward-5(3)(2), Paldi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380007. [Pan :Abupg5905 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash D Shah With Shri Saiyam Shah, Ars Respondent By: Shri Abhijit , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 26.12.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah with Shri Saiyam Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit , Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Maulik Ashokkumar Shah, Godhra vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 811/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

Effect 26,50,000/-. 9. 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. 10. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law by Intimating to impose the penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income

Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, Ld. AO has erred in computation of interest u/s 234A of the Act even though the Appellant has filed its return of income within the statutory timeline. 6. On the facts and circumstances

Pradipsinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 325/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Even the interest charged by the AO is not according to law and if not deleted should be counted according

Trust Fund for Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities, New Delhi vs. ACIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 1453/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

then the income of the current year. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant the proper adequate

Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 999/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 250

return of income being not taxable and to pay advance tax under the provision of section 208 of the IT Act and interest u/s 234A & B ought to have been deleted. 3 6] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds

Jugender Reddy Ananthula, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1342/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 234ASection 3Section 4

assessee at Rs. 4,51,08,670/-. Thereafter, the A.O., taking cognizance of the fact that while finalizing the regular assessment interest u/s 234A was short levied to the tune of Rs. 13,22,337/- for a period of 26 months, i.e., from August, 2014 to September, 2016, issued notice ... short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the A.O. had grossly erred in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act for a period of 26 months i.e., from August, 2014 to September, 2016. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that