“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

ITO 41(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Parvez Ahmed Khalkullah Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand partly allowed as indicated here in above

ITA 497/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 37(1)Section 68

Assessed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act at total income of Rs. 31,89,63,158/-. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is charged accordingly. Penalty 271AAC(1) of the Act is being initiated for addition on account of 68 & 69C r.w.s 115BE

Amit Products, Tonk, Newai vs. Rjn-W-(107)(5), Tonk

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1333/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (thro. V.C)For Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 69C

full. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case in charging the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. The levy interest being charged, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full

Malay Shaileshbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2193/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69A

STA Beha sila, senewe aahs a, sera | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD gm geacecad, wate wees

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

become academic after decision on Ground no. 7,8 & 9. Therefore, these grounds are not being adjudicated. 5.7 Ground No. 10: Levy of interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C are consequential in nature. Therefore, this ground is not to be adjudicated. 5.8 Ground No. 11: This ground may be adjudicated

M/S Punjab & Maharastra Co-Op. Bank Ltd (Now Amalgamated With M/S Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd ), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2172/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi and Ms. Dinkle Haria, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 9(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the issue of interest u/s 234A, which has been wrongly levied. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change or modify the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief

M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 725/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘DB’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Parshavnath Associates, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1358/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

full. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234C, 234C and 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act made by the AO. The interest ... deleted in full. 3. The Ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234C, 234C and 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

Safal Twins Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed as above

ITA 6881/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Safal Twins Cooperative Ito Ward-27(3)(2) Housing Society Ltd. Tower No. 6, Vashi Cts No. 396, 396/1, 397 Vs. Station Complex 397/Safal Twins Saras Vashi, Navi Baug St Road, Deonar Mumbai-400 703. Mumbai-400 088. Pan : Aaeas0103R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Giridhar Dhelia

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 90P(2)(d)

Appellant is bad in law hence such order be set aside. 6) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, the same was unjustified and hence the same be deleted. 7) The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

deleted in full. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary

Roechling Industrial India Private Limited, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Lncome Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6722/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 234A

barred by limitation is without jurisdiction and void ab initio and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Erred in calculating interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in calculating interest u/s Section

Nilanjana Arvinder Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 6140/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 37(1)

erred in confirming the same. 4. On 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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals ... erred in confirming the same. 4. On 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 proceedings u/s 270A(2)(b) even though section 270A is not applicable to the Assessment year under consideration

M/S. Nanak Chand Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

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 craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds ... which is taken in ground No. 5. Ground of appeal No. 6 is in relation to the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act Ground of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 5. Brief facts leading

Ram Swaroop Balai, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

case ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in confirming the action of ld. AO for charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 7. The appellant reserved her right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ram Kishor Soni, 626, Sector No.3, Chankyapuri, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blips8712B बनाम/ V/S. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present A.O.: Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. F. Jain, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Respective Orders Of Commissioner Of Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao"] Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, They Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee without appreciating the facts available on record. 4. On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A, 234B ought to have been levied. 5. He has erred in law and facts in relying upon legal decisions mentioned in the appeal order ... section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee without appreciating the facts available on record. 6. On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A, 234B ought to have been levied. ITA Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 Ram Kishor Soni vs. ITO Asst. Years

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1281/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

full. 9. The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, & 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary

Ravi Pichaya, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 73/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

no.5 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 11. With regard to ground no.6, we find that the assessee has challenged the confirmations of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as charged by the Assessing Officer. We find that the interest is consequential in nature and, therefore, there is no error

Ravi Pichaya, Director in Hextech Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2205/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234A

Ekta Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Virar vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

u/s 80P(2)(d). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in wrong charging interest u/s 234A, B & C and levying penalty u/s 270A. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Cooperative Credit Society registered ... u/s 80P(2)(d). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in wrong charging interest u/s 234A, B & C and levying penalty u/s 270A. 13. We find that grounds no.1 and 2 pertain to deductions u/s 80P which has already been