← 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

Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Apropos To The Grounds So Raised The Relevant Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Reiterated Here

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 154

restored. 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 and C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same ... grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case 4. in charging the interest u/s 234A, B and 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 be deleted

Shri Mahadev Parabat Patel, Thane vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Kalyan, Thane

ITA 355/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 57Section 69A

course appellate proceedings before the Ld. C.I.T. (A). Your appellant, therefore, prays that the addition made/confirmed be deleted in full. 3. Levy of Interest u/s 234A and 234B on the additionally assessed income. 3 Shri. Mahadev Parbat Patel, AY 2020-21 On the facts and in the circumstances ... case, and also in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B by the Ld. AO on the additions made to the income, as such an additions were not envisaged by the appellant while filing return of income. Your appellant, therefore, prays

M/S Vinuthna Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2705/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2705/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2008-09) Vinuthna Securities Pvt V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd बिधम Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai 227 Swastik Plaza, Pokhrna Income Tax Officer Ward Road No. 1, Subhash Nagar, 1(3)(4), Mumbai, Aaykar Thane 400601. Bhavan 400601 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcv1025E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Paras JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250

could be invoked in respect of matter entailing long drawn process reasoning as distinguished from mistakes apparent from the record viz levy of interest u/s 234A in reopened assessment in respect of period prior to filing of return of income u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The learned ... opportunity to the appellant, of being heard and explains the case. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the "Authorities Below" erred in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act amountingto Rs 47, 44,783 in respect of period prior to filing of return of income tax. 4. The Appellant craves

Aysha Siddiqui, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 329/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

account of brokerage at Rs.2,39,960/- by assessee while computing capital gain. 8. The assessee denies liability to be assessed to interest u/s 234A & 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice the interest levied u/s 234A and 234B is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 9. Any other grounds shall

Sushila Devi Ladiwala, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6 (2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 1435/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Uma, Adv. ( Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

found to be not maintainable. 7 Sushila Devi Ladiwala, vs. ITO 6. Ground of Appeal 3 raised the issues of charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. The charging of interest is a consequential action to the addition made as per the provisions of law. Hence, this ground is found

Champaben Naresh Limbani, Village Nani Khakhar, Tal. Mandavi, Dist. Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward-3, Gandhidham(Bhuj-1), Gandhidham

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

ITA 834/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 11ISection 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148ASection 148BSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

wrongly confirmed applicability of provisions of section 11ISBBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the LT. Act, 1961. 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F

Rakesh Khivasara, Beawar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 115Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234A

trading on MCX/NCDX. 5. That sustaining of levy of tax under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 14,82,000 and charging of interest u/s 234A, 2348, 234C and 234F at Rs. 59,240; 3,70,250; 74,792 and 5000 respectively, aggregating ... facts and in law sustaining of levy of tax under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 14,82,000 and charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234F at Rs. 59,240; 3,70,250: 74,792 and 5000 respectively, aggregating all at Rs. 19,90,272 are unjust

Satya Narayan, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward 1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Palaka Satanarayana, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 282/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

also contains factual errors in respect of considering the amount of pre-paid taxes, resulting in un warranted excess Tax demand / levy of interest U/s 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act. 6. For these grounds or any other ground or grounds that may be urged during the course

Palaka Satyanarayana, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 281/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

also contains factual errors in respect of considering the amount of pre-paid taxes, resulting in un warranted excess Tax demand / levy of interest U/s 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act. 6. For these grounds or any other ground or grounds that may be urged during the course

Lala Ram Bagra, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1327/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 548Section 54F

given. 7. The CIT-(A) has erred in approving the AO's order in which section SOC was wrongly applied. 8. That the interest u/s 234A and 2348 is consequential. 9. That the appellant craves permission to add, amend, alter, modify or to withdraw any of the ground of appeal

Aswathnarayanaiah Rathnamma Raamesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

other sources should be fully deleted. 6. Levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 6.1. The learned AO erred in levying the interest u/s 234A and 234B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B is incorrect ... appellant denies its liability to pay the interest u/s 234A and 234B. 7. Prayer: 7.1. Based on the above grounds and other grounds adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the assessment order passed by the learned AO under section 144 and the order passed

Vineet Thakar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6098/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bhaniyawala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Deharadun vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 270A(10)(a)Section 271FSection 8Section 80ASection 80P

erred not granted personal hearing/Virtual Hearing before passing the erroneous order. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by sustaining the levy interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by sustaining the initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271F & u/s

Amit Sharma, Basti Nau, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 203/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, C. A
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

were not considered and dealt with while disposing off the appeal. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in two partnership firms M/s P Ram Chand

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

adjudicated upon. Hence ground no 4,5,6, and 7 are dismissed. Ground No. 8. The Ld. A.O. also erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the above grounds the appellant raised the issue of charging of interest u/s 234A/B/C. Interest

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

interest paid on TDS default of Rs. 3,488/-under section 37(1) of the Act. 16. The Ld AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act against legally untenable adjustments. 17. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with

Govindbhai Bhavandas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(2), Ahmedabad (Existing ITO Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 256/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Set Aside The Exparte Assessment Order Invoking Section 251(1)(A) Of The Act By Observing As Follows:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 251(1)(a)Section 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Agnee Gas Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1604/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\nAgnee Gas Agency\n13, Sukhram Chambers\nKhodiarnagar Char Rasta\nBapunagar\nAhmedabad - 380 024\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHFA 7561 M\nThe Income Tax Officer\nबनाम /\nWard-5(3)(3)\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nHardik Vora office\nRevenue by:\nShri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई क

For Appellant: Hardik Vora officeFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

well as on facts of the case. It is therefore prayed that initiation of penalty proceedings may kindly be quashed/cancelled. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The appellant denies to pay interest as there being no default as per section 234A, 234B, 234C ... well as on facts of the case. It is therefore prayed that initiation of penalty proceedings may kindly be quashed/cancelled. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The appellant denies to pay interest as there being no default as per section 234A, 234B, 234C

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2962/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2962 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Visteon Corporation Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation, Van Buren Township, Circle-2(2), Michigan-48111 Chennai. [Pan: Aadcv5660K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Mr.Aditya Vohra, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Mr.AdityaFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 263

assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13.0 The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground of appeal no.5 is regarding charging of interest u/s 234A and section 234B of the act. The charging of interest under the provisions of the act is consequential in nature. The ground of appeal