“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

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R

Section 144CSection 147Section 148

accordingly, we allow all the grounds raised by the assessee in both the assessment years on similar lines. Levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B are consequential and mandatory in nature to be computed accordingly. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

dropped. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the action of the Ld. AO in the levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident. She did not file her return of income

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the Act which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled

Atul Govindji Shroff, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 234A of the Act. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 234B

Rati Ram Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N.Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

account of alleged interest income. e. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act f. Charging interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C of the Act. The above action being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

premature ground raised by the assessee at this stage, hence it is dismissed as such. 10. The next issue of proposing penal interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D, these are also consequential in nature, hence the ground no 1.4 raised by the assessee is not adjudicated at this stage

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3342/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

hereby deleted. Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed. 9. Ground no.2 of the appeal is against the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. In view of our decision in ground no.1, the Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the interest u/s 234A & 234B in accordance ... accordance with law. Ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground no.5 of the appeal is against the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. In view of our decision in ground no.2, the Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the interest u/s 234A, 234B

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1868/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

receipt of share application moneys. He drew adverse conclusion without giving the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard. 10. The levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is not correct and the appellant denies its liability for the levy of interest amounts. 11. The appellant craves leave ... lower authorities. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal are dismissed. Page 25 11. Since ground no. 10 is related to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, which are consequential in nature, no separate adjudication is required on the same. 12. To sum up, the appeal

Sri. Amit Kumar Rajendra Prasad Singh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 306/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36

Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, as computed in the intimation u/s.143[1] of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 703/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)

accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed in the return filed. 12. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 13. In view of the above and other grounds

Aasha Hement Ranawat, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed “in limine, with liberty as granted”

ITA 1480/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraaasha Hemant Ranawat Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1) 1801, 18Th Floor, The Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Majestic, Khed Galli, X Piramal Chamber, Lane, Annasaheb Patil Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Marg, Prabhadevi, 400012 Mumbai- 400025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barate, Sr-DR

Section 10(38)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax Act towards the commission expenses. (iii) The learned CIT(A) erred in not passing any speaking order relating to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. (iv) The learned CIT(A) erred in not passing any speaking order relating to initiation

Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1824/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234ASection 244A

Rs.1,69,71,833/-. Hence, we dismiss grounds no. 2 and 3 challenging the quantum addition. With respect to charging of the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and paying interest under section 244A of the Act, we do not find any anomaly in the impugned order

Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1238/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, C-6/1., Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward-36(5), New Delhi-110007. New Delhi. Pan-Aekpj2063C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dr.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

assessee denies the liability of interest charged U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Without prejudice, levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023

Shree Kumbhajai Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 183/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Dasija, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

related to disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Grounds No. 6 & 7 are against the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: a. The assessee is a co-operative housing society and return

Satya Wati L/H of Late Sh. Radhay Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 1371/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

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. 9. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Satya Wati L/H of Late Sh. Radhay Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 37(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1370/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below: “1. The appellant is an Agriculturist and has no income other than Interest on savings and term deposits in bank, during the previous relevant to assessment year under appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

Smt. Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

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

ITA 84/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DambleFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Divisional Valuation officer when they were not satisfied with the explanation of assessee. 5. The assessee denies liability to be assessed to interest u/s 234A and 234B of Income tax Act, 1961, without prejudice the interest levied u/s 234A and 234B is unjustified and unwarranted 6. The assessee also denies

Raheja Chambers Premises Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 630/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Raheja Chambers Premises Co- Operative Society Limited of the Act. Grounds No. 6 & 7 are against the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: a. The assessee is a co-operative housing society and return