“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

Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- Gurgaon, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3821/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty notice may be held invalid. 8. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is contrary to law and may be deleted. 9. That appellant craves to leave, alter, amend or modify

Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Evershine No II Co-Op Hsg So Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salukhe

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 80P(2)(d)

654/Mum/2017. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the hereby

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

addition made of Rs. 13,30,000/- u/s 40A(3), addition of Rs. 10,006/-on account of Rent and charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Act. Several opportunities have been allowed to the appellant in terms of the notices fixed for hearing of the appeal under ... which challenge the additions made by AO of Rs.13,30,000/- u/s 40A(3), Rs.10,006/- on account of Rent and Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of Act. However no 8 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur written submissions were filed in respect of Grounds of Appeal. It is noted

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

total loss of Rs. (-)63315814/- u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Credit for prepaid taxes is given. Interest U/s 234A, 234B & 234C as applicable is charged as per Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, assessment order along with demand notice is issued to the assessee. NeAC

Maheboob, Wadi, Tq Chittapur, Dist Kalab vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1770/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Counsel for Revenue

Section 139Section 148Section 194ISection 234A

dismissed as infructuous. 3. Likewise, the issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 7 of the appeal pertains to the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which are Page 2 of 7 consequential in nature and therefore the same does not require any separate

Anup Ajay Dandapat, Nallasopara vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 657/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR.)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

confirming the same additions. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in levying interest u/s 234A, B, C and D & initiating penalty u/s 271AAC[1]. [B] Relief Prayed: The Appellant therefore prays follows, 1. To quash the order passed u/s ... made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE under the head income from other sources without appreciating the details filed. 3. To delete the disallowance interest u/s 234A, B, C and D & initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) [C] General 1. The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion

Pathare Prabhu Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 591/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Chapekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

rejected the claim of Rs.29,58,400/- u/s 80P vide intimation dated 26.02.2013 and raised a demand of Rs. 9,36,610/-including interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of The Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the present appeal, order passed

Ratnaravi Metal Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ofiicer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble1.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in leaving interest u/s 234A of Income Tax Act,1961. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in leaving

H Karmali and Co, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 1254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: 16.04.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69C

erred in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC(1). On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO erred in passing assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard

Bio- Care Technologies, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 4 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6946/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 142Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

NFAC / CIT(A) as well as the Valuation officer failed to consider the similar sale instances submitted by the Appellant. 5. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C On merits, the Appellant denies its liability to the levy of penal interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C, hence the interest levied

Kishordas Tulsidas Vaishnav, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 1152/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1152/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Kishordas Tulsidas Vaishnav Vs. The Ito, 1, Beside Dilkush Dabeli, Surya Ward – 5, Hospital Road, Gunjan Gidc, Vapi Vapi - 396195 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akrpv8376R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Wasim Akram, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

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

ITA 1314/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Vipula Kumari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 142(1)Section 144

appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed. 6.2. Ground No. 3 and 4: These ground relates to levy of interest u/s 234A and 234b. Charging of interest is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum 8 Wasim Akram , Sikar M. H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1. Therefore, this

Surendra Mangaldas Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2035/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Surendra Mangaldas Shah, Huf The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) G/7, Amola Chambers Vs Ahmedabad. Cg Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aachs 6590 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By : Adjournment Application Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Adjournment Application

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

authorities erred in law and on facts not considering orders accepting peak balance theory on identical facts submitted by the appellant. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/ 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 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 and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence

Rajendra Bhalchandra Mokashi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5154/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajeet Manwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

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 the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 163/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)