← 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4950/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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4946/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

Rajmala Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya,Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) 3 Rajmala Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. of the Act. Grounds No. 6 & 7 are against the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: a. The assessee is a co-operative housing society

Radhe Finsec India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 506/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234A

Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO 115JAA of Rs. 3,76,957/- came to Rs. 6.17, 588/ The said amount of tax along with interest u/s 234A 234B and 234C resulted into aggregate income tax liability of Rs. 6,40,206/ which after taking credit

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 4819/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21 Schindler India Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of Schindler House, Income Tax, Main Street, Vs. Circle-15(3)(2) Hiranandani Gardens, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai -400076 New Marine Lines, [Pan: Aaecs1548J] Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 92C

directed to grant the credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 5,86,957/- 9. Ground No. 9: Levy of Interest U/S 234A and 234B of The Act: 9.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A ... respectively. 9.2. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete/ appropriately reduce the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 7 The Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and consequential relief

Puneet Seth, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysh. Puneet Sheth Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1) B-39, Mension Villas, Gurugram Rose Wood City, Haryana – 122001 Sector-49, Gurugram Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aojps4547R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 140Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234A

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. 7. That the appellant, crave leave to amend, alter, add or delete any of the forgoing grounds

Ishwar Dayal (L/H of Prashadi Singh), Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5113/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information, during the financial year 2009-10, the assessee has sold

Weir Minerals (India) Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4713/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 234B

infirmity in the order of the AO and therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Ground no.2 is directed against charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Since charging of interest is mandatory and procedural in nature as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court

Sur Nirman Educational and Cultural Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2375/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

disallowable. 5. That any consequential relief to which the appellant may be entitled under the foregoing grounds, including relief, in the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 244A of the Act may be granted. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or delete any/all the Grounds

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore the AO is directed to give effect of the same

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore the AO is directed to give effect of the same

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

deleted in full. 3. The Id. 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 ... return. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7.2 On Grounds of Appeal No 3:- This ground of appeal relates to interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which is mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7.3 On Grounds of Appeal

Sunilkumar Purshottamdas Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2) (Previously ITO, Ward-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 308/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 40A(3)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Kirti Krishna Trademart Pvt. Ltd., Bharatpur vs. ITO WD 2, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1440/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 253(5)Section 274Section 69A

amount of income tax is calculated @ 60% as per provisions of section 115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. Interest u/s 234A and 2348 is charged as per Rules. Demand notice u/s 156 of the I.T. Act for the sum payable as shown in the ITNS attached and forming part

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

full. 4. 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 ... deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO has grossly erred inlaw as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A,. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

full. 4. 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 ... deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO has grossly erred inlaw as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A,. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

ITA 1179/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

full. 4. 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

Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nirgudsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(5). Pune, Akurdi

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

ITA 435/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.435/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Ito, Ward-10(5), Pune. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At Post Nirgudsar, Dist.- Pune- 412406. Pan : Aabas8790H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Was Not Justified In Denying The Claim Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80P Of The Act Holding That Co-Operative Banks Are Not Co-Operative Societies. The Deduction Be Allowed Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is unwarranted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is not justified. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend, delete or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal during the appellate

Wika Instruments India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2767/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(11)Section 144C(5)

Adjustment proposed by NIL DRP Assessed income 24,32,06,832/- 08. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Issue Demand Notice accordingly.” ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] 2.3 Thus, it can be noted that in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer suo-moto assessed

Rajendra Kumar Samad, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jamshedpur

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 207/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rajendra Kumar Samad, I.T.O., Dipasai, Kharswan, Saraikela-833216 Ward 2(4), Vs. (Jharkhand) Jamshedpur. Pan No. Fiops 6380 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 234ASection 89

been granted and credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 5,68,775/- had also been given. The system is wrongly calculated interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C during passing the assessment order. In this regard, it is found that the calculation of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C should not be charged ... during passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The above charged interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C can be reduced to nil by passing the rectification order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act." ITA 207/Ran/2023 Rajendra Kumar Samad Vs ITO 6. We have considered the facts