← 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

Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Thane vs. DCIT CC, Thane

ITA 3384/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malt
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

cannot, be basis of addition. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same ... cannot be basis of addition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A. 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Thane vs. DCIT CC, Thane

ITA 3382/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malt
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

cannot, be basis of addition. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same ... cannot be basis of addition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A. 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Thane vs. DCIT CC, Thane

In the result assessee’sground no

ITA 3381/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malti Ghosh (CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

cannot, be basis of addition. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same ... cannot be basis of addition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A. 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

Sujata Pramod Dalvi, Thane vs. DCIT CC, Thane

ITA 3380/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Smt.Madhu Malti Ghosh (CIT DR)&
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

cannot, be basis of addition. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same ... cannot be basis of addition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A. 234B and 234C and also initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) even though no income is concealed & CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

Kala Arvind Jain, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 389/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 45Section 54F

Transfer of Property Act.) Appellant prays for deduction as claimed. 2 ITA No.389/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4. Assessee denies Liability to Interest u/s 234A, B and 234 C. Appellant prays for deletion of the Same. 5. Interest u/s 234A is nor attracted as Return is filed within extended Due date

M/S. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2240/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 42-B, Triloknagar Society Vs Income-Tax Near Aruvedik Hospital Circle-3(1)(1) Outside Pani Gate, Ahmedabad Vadodara – 390 019 Pan: Aadcn 3151 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Paras F. Jain,Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 25/09/2018 Passed For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1 The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding The Order Of The A.O. Assessing Income At Rs. 1,25,45,835/- As Against Nil Returned Income Declared By The Assessee After Set Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Of Rs. 76,75,095/- 2. He Has Erred In Upholding The Estimation Of Commission @ 2% On Total Deposits In The Bank As Against 0.5% Agreed By The Assessee Without Properly Appreciating The Facts & Estimation Of Income At 0.5% In Similar Other Cases. He Has Erred In Law & Facts In Not Properly Appreciating & Accepting The Written Submission Furnished By The Assessee During Course Of Assessment Proceedings. M/S.Nikshal Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Ay 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Paras F. Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 234A

commission @ 0.5% on the basis of assessment made in other companies on similar facts. 5 On the facts of the assessee, no interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C ought to have been levied. 6 On the facts of the appellant, returned income ought to have been accepted. 7 The appellant

Nikshal Poperties Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम" "ीमती अ"पूणा

ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ardor Overseas Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2812/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम" "ीमती अ"पूणा

Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2785/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम" "ीमती अ"पूणा

Mahalakshmi Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 4.3 Ground No. 5 relates to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. The appellant submitted that this has been levied against the provision of law and against the settled legal position of charging the interest u/s 234A ... assessment. The matter has been examined and find that the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C is consequential and mandatory in nature, which has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR1(SC). Since the ground no. 3 & 4 have

Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad vs. Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 4.3 Ground No. 5 relates to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. The appellant submitted that this has been levied against the provision of law and against the settled legal position of charging the interest u/s 234A ... assessment. The matter has been examined and find that the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C is consequential and mandatory in nature, which has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR1(SC). Since the ground no. 3 & 4 have

Itl Labs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1713/DEL/2024[2017 - 18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 115BSection 154Section 234ASection 68

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 9. That the Appellant-Assessee craves the leave to add, amend, modify and/or delete

Upendra Chinubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 729/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Shree Hanuman Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Kolkata.

In the result, in light of discussions made above, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 1326/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(5)Section 13(2)(a)Section 164Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

The Louis Berger Group Inc, Gugaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomne Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2630/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Louis Berger Group Inc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 3, Surinder Jakhir Dcit/Acit, International Bhawan, Sector-32, Gurgaon Taxation, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl4067F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vazanta, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Since return of income has been filed by the assessee in the instant case belatedly, interest u/s 234A of the Act would be chargeable. Hence, Ground No. 12 raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 21. Ground No. 13 raised by the assessee is challenging

Jcb India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal for assessment year 2009-10, 2013-14 in respect of transaction with non-AE is set aside to Id

ITA 512/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C

with the tax authorities 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5 M/s JCB India Ltd. Vs. DCIT Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

Kaushal Chand Patni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 1136/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

toto. 4. The Id. 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

Iyajool, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1)(5), Gautambudh Nagar

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

ITA 1857/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 234ASection 28

erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 3. There is a delay of 459 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. In this regard

Majidkhan Yakubkhan Pathan, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 625/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Majidkhan Yakubkhab Pathan Ito, Ward-3(1)(2) Basement Sardar Complex Vs Vadodara. Nr. Bank Of India Raopura, Vadodara Vadodara 390 001. Pan : Axlpp 0545 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69BSection 69C

facts of assessee no additions to the returned income ought to have been made. (6): On the facts of assessee no interest u/s 234A and 234B ought to have been levied. (7): The Appellant craves leave to add , to alter and or to modify any ground of appeal

Panchayti Dharamshala Kaseran Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1177/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 12Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 246

returned income. 3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C, 234D. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions ... oral arguments of the Ld. AR failed to demonstrate that how applicability of Tax at Maximum Marginal Rate and consequential charging of interest u/s 234A, B and C was contrary to the provisions of law. 8. In the present case, the appellant trust has claimed to be formed