← 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

Kalpanaben Nayankumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1878/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year

Kalpanaben Nayankumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1877/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete

Bravura Solutions India LLP, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 3944/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshbravura Solutions India Llp, Vs. Assessment Unit, P-24, Green Park Extension, Income Tax New Delhi-110016 Department, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfb3843C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92BSection 92C

additional grounds raised by the assessee are also hereby allowed for the same reason. 12. With regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act, the ld AO is directed to verify the extended due date of filing of return u/s ... Accordingly, the ld AO is directed to decide the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is settled that the same has to be charged

Aarti Sharma, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 89Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S.RIFAUR

Mrs. Trupti Jatin Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 71/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

deleted. 3. That the Honourable CIT(A) erred in law as well as in the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234F of the I.T Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete, substitute any of the grounds/ or take additional ground/s

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous levy of interest u/s 234A of 1 the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as in facts in computing ... interest u/s 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,33,858, as the Company has filed its ROI for the captioned AY before the due-date applicable as per Section 139(1) of the Act. 15. Erroneous calculation of interest 234B of the Act. u/s. 234B

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous levy of interest u/s 234A of 1 the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as in facts in computing ... interest u/s 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,33,858, as the Company has filed its ROI for the captioned AY before the due-date applicable as per Section 139(1) of the Act. 15. Erroneous calculation of interest 234B of the Act. u/s. 234B

Rohit M. Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed

ITA 6434/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rohit M. Savla Income-Tax Officer – B/4, Flat No. 501, Kutchi Sarvoday 27(3)(1),It Office, Vashi Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Govandi Vs. Railway Station, (Vv), Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai – 400043. Pan: Aacps 9562 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

NFAC/CIT(A) erred in making disallowing Rs. 1,25,000/- u/s 37 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. 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

Kishan Beej, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

wrongly confirmed applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC

Ravindra Nath Mishra, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 71(5), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2057/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), MS MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

identical claim of expenditure stands allowed 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act, us 234B of the Act of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. Prayer

Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., England vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 625/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.625/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., Acit Rocester, Uttoxeter, St 14, Vs. (International Taxation), 5Jp, Staffordshire, England. Circle-2(1)(2), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, D-Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabcj6004D Newdelhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

fresh investigation of facts. 10.Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in incorrectly levying interest u/s 234A of the Act. 4 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in incorrectly levying ... Total Oil India (P) Ltd. this ground of appeal is dismissed. 11. Ground nos. 10 & 11 are in respect of levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act which are consequential in nature. These grounds are restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 12. Ground no. 12 is against

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 357/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.90,86,870/- and U/s 234B of Rs.90,86,870/- without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return ... said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.91,06,945/- and U/s 234B of Rs.91,06,945/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 356/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.90,86,870/- and U/s 234B of Rs.90,86,870/- without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return ... said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.91,06,945/- and U/s 234B of Rs.91,06,945/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 355/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.90,86,870/- and U/s 234B of Rs.90,86,870/- without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return ... said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.91,06,945/- and U/s 234B of Rs.91,06,945/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 354/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.90,86,870/- and U/s 234B of Rs.90,86,870/- without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return ... said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.91,06,945/- and U/s 234B of Rs.91,06,945/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 353/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 1St Floor, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ V/S. The I.T.O. Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakca 3027 E Assessee By: Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Five Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 To 2017-18 Arising From The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act). Since Common Issues Are Involved, All These Appeals Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.90,86,870/- and U/s 234B of Rs.90,86,870/- without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return ... said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 7). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.91,06,945/- and U/s 234B of Rs.91,06,945/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 8). on the facts the return

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2022

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not being Just & Fair, Appellant pray for relief accepting Returned Income. 6) Assessee denies liability to Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C etc. Prays to cancel the same. 7) Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds, submit additional evidence and / or during

Ashokbhai Mahadevbhai Chavda, Surendranagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Surendranagar

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

ITA 47/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Pandya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69B

figure of Rs. 28,38,600 in the order. Appellant has not made any investments in the year under consideration. 2. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B of the Act is not justified. 3. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 3. Facts

Rajesh Kumar Bhadani, Gaya vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 704/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

circumstances of the appellant's case 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default