← 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

Malav Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1112/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 54F

addition. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A,2348,234C and 234D of the Act when no such interest is chargeable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

violation of principles of natural justice and is not in accordance with law. 10. The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal ... unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 5. First

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal ... unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 5. First

Yogesh Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1044/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, Adv
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal ... unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 5. First

Smt. Neelamma, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1721/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Monish, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing counsel for department
Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 69A

assessee has challenged the action of lower authorities vis-à-vis merits of the addition. Ground No.9 is related to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. Smt. Neelammam Shivamogga Page 3 of 5 4.1 Besides these grounds, the assessee has also filed an application dated

Murali Nukala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1148/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Murali Nukala Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Abfpn1674F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Reema Yadav, DR
Section 115Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessing officer's action in charging interest u/s 234A Ra.1,46,008/- and 234B of Rs.5,79,204/-. 8. Any other ground / grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. At the outset, we find that there

Shri Rajesh Bhavarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Incometax Officer 21(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3605/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nisheeth DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the contention of the Assessing

Ava Builders Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1855/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

allowed, ground no.1of the appeal becomes academic and not adjudicated. 9. Ground No.3 of the appeal is with respect to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Charging of interest is consequential and the AO will levy interest as per law. 10. Ground No.4

Rashmi, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

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

ITA 406/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

facts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 are considered, then there would be an additional demand of Rs. 1,77, 18,004 besides interest u/s 234A and 234B as detailed below:- S.No. Particulars Amount Remarks 1. LTCG in r/s land 3,78,30,251 Sale consideration for land : Rs.3 ... Rs.2,91,39,180* 30% C @ 10% and EC @3%. Total short levy of tax 1,77,18,004 Besides interest u/s 234A and 234B Hence, I am satisfied that the assessee’s case is fit case to be reopened u/s 147 of the act as I have reason

J K Associates, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1200/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1200/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ J K Associates Ito Vikram Plaza, Nr. Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Vishwakarma Mandir, Chandlodia, Ahmedabad - 382481 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfj9737G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 25/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 03.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2017-18. An Information Was Received By The Ao That The Assessee Firm Had Purchased Immovable Property Of Rs.1 Crore During The F.Y. 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y. 2017-18. In The Absence Of Any Return Filed By The Assessee, The Source Of Investment By The Assesse In The Immovable Property Remained Unexplained. Therefore, The Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

Associates Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 9 Ld. NFAC erred in upholding invocation of section 115BBE of the Act. 10 Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified. 11 Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.” 5. The first four grounds taken by the assessee

Surrendra Kumar Goenka, Howrah vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 5Section 90

India-Netherland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with Section 90 of the Act. He has also challenged the levying of additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the act. 5. Contrary to that, the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions, we have

Karunamoorthi Kavitha, Dharmapuri vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1732/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1732/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karunamoorthi Kavitha, Assistant Commissioner Of No.10A, Vijaya Hospital, V. Income Tax, Pennagaram Main Road, Opp Central Circle, Madheswara Theatre, Salem – 636 007. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan: Amfpk-6223-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

erred in confirming the above additions merely out of conjectures, surmises and suspicions. 9. For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C. 10. The above grounds are taken without prejudice to one another. For these grounds and such other grounds that

Shantirani Samarathamal Dagriya, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-34 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3467/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142Section 144Section 234ASection 234FSection 271ASection 69A

Income Tax Act. 6) The Ld.AO erred in imposing penalty u/s.234F of the Income Tax Act. 7) The Ld.AO erred in imposing interest u/s 234A of the Income Tax Act. 8) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or drop any of all ground of appeal

Mohan Bairagani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri S. Mookamkbikeyan, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

book of accounts and therefore no addition can be made u/s 69A of the I.T.Act 5. The Ld AO erred in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs.1,86,636/ - 234B of Rs.15,39,747, 234C of Rs.3,260/-. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time

Chikkannaputtamma Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Pranav G. Ambekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 234Section 234ASection 250

Rs.36,98,111/- had been treated as the income of the assessee trust and accordingly raised a demand of Rs.11,99,833/- including interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234F of the Act. Chikkanna Puttamma Educational Trust, Bangalore Page 4 of 9 2.1 Aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s

Deepchand Khetmal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4223/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

property as income from other sources without appreciating the facts, submission made before the NFAC. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under

Gagan Arora, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

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

ITA 657/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2017-18 Gagan Arora, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ad-34, First Floor, Income Tax Tagore Garden, Department, New Delhi – 110 027 Delhi (Pan: Afjpa5678Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

case. 12. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.AO erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The Ld.AO grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act. 2. In this case

Visible Chits (Maharashtra) (P) Ltd., Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

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

ITA 4491/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Raj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250Section 61Section 68

u/s 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. The Learned Assessment Unit has erredin law andin fact by levying interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C charged for the defaults made by the appellant as per income Tax Computation form, The appellant prays for leave to add to, amend, or modify