← 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

Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 1417/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30/03/2023, deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and upheld the disallowance of Rs.144.49 crores made by the A.O. and added back to the income of the assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30/03/2023, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 234A

making disallowances of Rs. 144,49,29,000/- in respect of exceptional items claimed in the profit and loss account; c. charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. 2 M/s Fertilizer Corporation of India The above actions are being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

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

ITA 667/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 69

lock down in the entire country and never served on the assessee is a non-est return and thereby increasing the liability of interest u/s 234A. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO u/s 144/147 ... response to notice u/s 148, the same is non-est. Accordingly he completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and charged interest u/s 234A at Rs.38,81,094/- as per computation sheet from 01.08.2014 to 30.09.2021, i.e. for 86 months on Rs.45,12,900/-. It is noted that that

M/S.Venus Goods & Supply(P)Td, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

ITA 971/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Wing, Kolkata did not even name the appellant company nor there is anything against the appellant directly or indirectly. 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

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

ITNS-150 and the Demand Notice u/s 156 of the I.T. Act. 1961 are issued which are part of this Order. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per the provisions 7 Ravindra Gaur. vs.ITO of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings for non-compliance of the notices issued

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging the excess interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act respectively. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above-referred grounds of appeal. 4. The briefs facts

Rajesh Saluja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5190/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24

against principal of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 10. That the interest u/s 234A and 2348 has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included

Jsd Steel Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Cbs Steel Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8002/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12 Jsd Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (Formerly Cbs Steel Pvt. Circle – 5 (2) Ltd. Sb Garg & Co. Cas New Delhi 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi Pan No.Aaccc7004P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachin Kumar, Ca Sh. Achin Garg, Advocate Respondent By Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263Section 68

erred in not deciding the ground of appeal No. 4 to 10. 7 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act and without prejudice the same is excessive. 8 The observations made in the assessment order as well as the impugned

Bhushan Lal Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5422/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasmt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, Vs. Acit, Wife Of Late Shri Bhushan Central Circle-7, Lal Sawhney, New Delhi 6, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ejkps1519F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Tarun Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions for allowing relief regarding charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions ... ground of appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. This issue is consequential in nature so no needing any specific adjudication and are accordingly treated as dispose

Mehta Manilal Panachand & Sons, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 848/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 271Section 68

facts in confirming disallowance made by AO of Rs. 1,28,910/- incurred at the site of the project. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/ 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The assessee

Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

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, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT E (Circle), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 305/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

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, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds

Srs Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9758/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 249(4)

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law. 7) That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging and sustaining interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act at Rs. 6,73,470/-, Rs. 2,79,19,712/- and Rs. 17,63,823/- respectively.” Maharashtra Feeds ... directed the revenue to charge  interest u/s 234B upto the date of order u/s 245D(1).  interest u/s 234A to be charged for delay in filing of the original return u/s 139/153C on the total income determined u/s 245D(4). 7. In this background, we have examined the judgment

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1253/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging and sustaining interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act at Rs. 6,73,470/-, Rs. 2,79,19,712/- and Rs. 17,63,823/- respectively.” Maharashtra Feeds ... directed the revenue to charge  interest u/s 234B upto the date of order u/s 245D(1).  interest u/s 234A to be charged for delay in filing of the original return u/s 139/153C on the total income determined u/s 245D(4). 7. In this background, we have examined the judgment

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IPDIs u/s. 37/28 of the Act in computing business income of the Appellant. GROUND NO XIX: LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THЕ АСТ: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify the levy ... interest u/s 234A of the Act when the details that the return was filed within the statutory time limit specified u/s 139 of the Act were on record. 2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the interest charged u/s 234A of the Act. GROUND XX: LEVY

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IPDIs u/s. 37/28 of the Act in computing business income of the Appellant. GROUND NO XIX: LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify the levy ... interest u/s 234A of the Act when the details that the return was filed within the statutory time limit specified u/s 139 of the Act were on record. 2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the interest charged u/s 234A of the Act. GROUND XX: LEVY

Samata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Paranda, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-Nanded, Nanded

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1088/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1088/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Samata Shikshan Prasarak The Income Tax Officer, Mandal Paranda, V Exemption Ward, C/O.Adhyapak Vidyalaya, S Nanded. Paranda, Osmanabad -413502. Pan: Aahts3344N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12 Passed On 27.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2018. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Held That Since Assessee Failed To File Copy Of Registration Under Section 12A Of The Act, Assessee Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section Samata Shikshan Prsarak Mandal Paranda [A]

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250

being Just and Fair in Considering Appellant’s all Submissions made in response to Various Notices. 8. Assessee denies Liability to Interest u/s 234A, 234B. 9. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds, submit additional evidence, and/or withdraw the ground/s, during appellate Proceedings.” 2 Samata Shikshan Prsarak Mandal

Khairunnisa, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 24/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, appeared through virtual modeFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, appeared through virtual mode
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 54F

Assessing officer in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B of the I.T. Act. 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts

Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Urdu Hall Ward 9(4), Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. House No.3-6-195/B, Telangana. Pan : Aplpr0940L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Appeared For Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sudhakar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144oSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

13/06/2023 is illegal ex-facie and violative of principals of natural justice. 8) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in charging interest u/s 234A 3,02,036/- and 234B of Rs 3,45,184/-.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 147 days