← 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

Ishwar Chander Pahuja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

conferencing was afforded by him as prayed for by the Appellant. 8. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act based on assessed income in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 3. Brief facts

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

exemption be granted accordingly. 7] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B,and 234C is not justified. 8] The Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter, delete any of the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. The facts

Pnr Builders and Developers, Mumbai - Maharashtra vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

ITA 3745/MUM/2024[AY2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69C

erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. 6. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C On merits, the Appellant denies its liability to the levy of penal interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C, hence the interest levied may be directed

Surabhi Entertainment Private Limited ( Previously Known As Pearls Entertainment Private Limited), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed on merit

ITA 9736/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

addition of Rs. 9,40,000/- as commission incurred without mentioning the provision of the Income Tax Law. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B for the additions sustained by Ld. AO is not tenable in law. 7. The assessee craves the leave to add, alter, delete, withdraw

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(2), Nagpur vs. Ajay Vishandas Kamnani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DemleFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

books as the excess pertains to the ownership of the associate concern Meera Traders. e. The assessee denies liability to be assessed to interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of income Tax Act 1961. Without prejudice the interest levied u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C is unjustified and unwarranted. • On Merits

Smt. Deepinder Kaur Johal, Patiala vs. ITO, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 532/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ManpreetDuggal, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

respect of Ground No. 2 has held as follows: 6. In ground no. 3, the appellant has contested charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C &.234D. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature and mandatory as has been held ... case of Motorola Inc. a/s. DCIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Del) (SB) 1, the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench has held that levying of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that it cannot be waived or reduced by the IT. authorities. Hence, I hold that neither there

Mukesh Kumar Jajoriya, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO WD 2(3), Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 51/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

prayed that the deduction u/s 54B be allowed. 5. Challenge to Interest Charged u/s 234A & 234B: The Id. AO is challenged for charging interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act. The appellant vehemently denies any liability for such interest, contending that it is contrary to the provisions

Kulsum Mohamed Farooq Mojawala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2428/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule, (Addl. CIT)SR DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 246ASection 250

assessee and for which the said appeal is filed. Ground No. 2: -The Learned ITO WD 17(2)(2) not justified in levy interest u/s 234A, u/s234B & u/s234C. Ground No. 3:-The Learned ITO WD 17(2)(2) not justified in initiating penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) or any other

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 902/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

ought to have considered facts that Section 11(3) of the Act has no applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 901/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

ought to have considered facts that Section 11(3) of the Act has no applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1037/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

ought to have considered facts that Section 11(3) of the Act has no applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee

Suresh Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Meerut

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

ITA 1051/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Suresh Singh, Vs Ito, C/O-Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Ward -1(2)(5), Chartered Accountants, C-763, Meerut. New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. Pan-Atzps1024N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

deposits made in bank account of the Appellant. At any rate, the addition as made is very excessive. 5. That the levy of interest u/s 234A of Rs.3,04,344 and interest u/s 234B of Rs.3,18,023 is arbitrary, unjust & illegal and any rate, without prejudice, very excessive

Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel L/H. of Late Dahyabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 352/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel, L/H Of Late Shri Dahyabhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwarbhai Patel, Ward-1, At Pirojpura, Post Sardarpura, Patan Taluko Vijapur, Mehsana Pan : Atjpp 7158 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

special rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified. 11. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C and 234D are unjustified.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 59 days on the part

Manjinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 5 (5), Chandigarh

In the result, we set- aside the matter to the file of the AO and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

facts of the case and without appreciating the accounts, necessity and technique subsequently to be rectified and corrected by appellant. 5. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D have been wrongly and illegally charged. 6. That the appellant craves permission to add, amend, elucidate any ground of appeal

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Central Range - 4, Mumbai

ITA 411/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 234CSection 274Section 43C

r.w.s 271(1)c) of the Act be dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 13,57,445/- of the Act. 3.3 The additional grounds

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 407/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 234BSection 234CSection 274Section 43C

r.w.s 271(1)c) of the Act be dropped. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 13,57,445/- of the Act. 3.3 The additional grounds

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 404/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 234B

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 234B

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 402/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

erred upholding th The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of AO in levying e action of AO in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/ interest u/s 234A of the Act of Rs. 47,630/-, u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 234B

Gnanasekaran, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1808/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Assessing Officer. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground :- “The CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s. 234A. He ought to have seen that the AO ought to have calculated interest only from the date of issuance of notice u/s. 153A till the filing ... Nos.1807 & 1808Chny/2024 The difference in demand payable is on account of computation of interest u/s 234A and 234B. The interest is chargeable for delay in filing the return of income as well for short payment of advancement tax. The chargeability of interest u/s 234A and 234B is mandatory for defaults