← 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

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9318/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 9317/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is partly

ITA 8590/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr Up vs. ACIT, Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8444/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 8443/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

ITA 8442/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961." 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961." 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal

ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1553/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sanjeev Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1011/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. AmishaGupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. At the time of hearing, assessee has only pressed ground nos.1 & 2 and other grounds of appeal ... case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 48. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Chital Amreli vs. ITO Exemption Ward-2 Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 328/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

wrongly confirmed disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.3,99,140/-. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA.328/RJT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital 4. That, the finding

Shanmughasundharamramanathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

ITA 888/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmughasundharam The Income Tax Officer, Ramanathan, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(6), No.45, Theosophical Society, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafps 6078P]

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234D

instead of 1981-1982. The AO ought to have consider the value as on 1.4.81. 3. The AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A a mounting to Rs. 1,85,648/-, any event, the interest levied is high, arbitrary and excessive which needs to be deleted in toto

Pradeep Kumar Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6849/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6849/Del/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Pradeep Kumar Jindal Acit H-1/1A, Model Town-Iii, Circle-20(1), New Delhi Vs. Behind Icici Bank, New Delhi – 110009 (C/O. Vivek Aarushi & Associates, G-40, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi, Delhi-110013) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipj8526A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Yadav, Cit.Dr 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Yadav, CIT.DR
Section 14ASection 24bSection 250Section 68

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Mohammed Aamir Khan, Dungarpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result declared by the assessee

ITA 640/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 234A

assessee and estimating a higher rate of GP. The other grievance of the assessee is that ld. AO has erred in charging the interest u/s 234A, B and C of the Act. 4. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dc/ACIT Circle(2)(1)(1), Dc/ACIT Circle

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2472/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. K.J. Dhivya, D.R
Section 234A

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 6 received by the assessee. In ground No.6, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). It is settled position of law that levy of interest is mandatory

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle 27, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 72/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Total 6,64,39,177/-. 8. That the Authorities below erred in both law and facts by chargeability of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act are bad in law. The Authority below is directed to alter, modify or delete the same in accordance with law. 9. That

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 970/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Total 6,64,39,177/-. 8. That the Authorities below erred in both law and facts by chargeability of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act are bad in law. The Authority below is directed to alter, modify or delete the same in accordance with law. 9. That

Balwant Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

full. 4. 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

Balwant Singh Chouhan, Noida vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

full. 4. 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

Abhiney Ravindra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotatk Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5110/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

relevant provisions of the law. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No. 2 relates to the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. Before us, the counsel fairly stated that while giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A), the AO has not charged ... interest u/s 234A of the Act. On such a concession, ground No. 2 becomes infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. 15. The first grievance of the revenue relates to the issue of ESOP. An identical issue has been decided

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5075/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

relevant provisions of the law. Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No. 2 relates to the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. Before us, the counsel fairly stated that while giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A), the AO has not charged ... interest u/s 234A of the Act. On such a concession, ground No. 2 becomes infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. 15. The first grievance of the revenue relates to the issue of ESOP. An identical issue has been decided