← 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

M/S Essargee Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT-1 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 11/IND/2023[22015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

passed on 04.11.2015 assessing income of at Rs. 10255390/-. Surcharge and education cess was levied incorrectly in the order u/s 147/143(3). Further, interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B and u/s 220(2) were levied incorrectly. Revised income and tax calculation is as under. Assessed income ... the4 same is being rectified accordingly.” 15. Thus, it is clear that there were mistake in computing surcharge and education cess consequently the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 220(2) were levied incorrectly. The last correction proposed by the AO in the order u/s 154 in respect of the interest

Swastik Corporation, Vapi vs. Pr. CIT 3, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.21/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Swastik Corporation The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Palak A-305, Surya Co-Operative Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Plot Arcade, Pali Hill Shanti Nagar, Tithal No.61, Vapi-396195 Road,Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtfs 1028 G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)Section 234A(1)Section 263Section 40

allowed the interest of Rs.11,05,769/-, which has resulted in under assessment of Rs.11,05,769/-. Further, the AO has not charged interest u/s 234A(1) of the Act from the date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act i.e. 20.07.20216 to the date of assessment order ... Income Tax Act. The AO had wrongly allowed the above said interest to partners. Further, the AO has not charged interest u/s 234A(1) of the I.T. Act from the date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act i.e., 20.07.2016 to the date of assessment order

Band Begam, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 69A

deleted in full. 8. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The appellant 3 Band Begam, Jaipur vs. ITO totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

provision redundant if any assessee fails to tie the return u/s 139(1) by the due date, he is bound to pay interest u/s 234A for the delay in filing of the return. Various High Courts have held that the provisions of 234 AB&C to be valid

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/MUM/2022[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)
Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

quantification of the interest u/s 220 (2) was not in accordance with the law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B, C OF THE ACT 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing in limine the ground raised by the Appellant with respect to levy ... interest u/s 234A, B, C of the Income tax Act, 1961["the Act), as not maintainable. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in: (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2389/MUM/2022[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)
Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

quantification of the interest u/s 220 (2) was not in accordance with the law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B, C OF THE ACT 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing in limine the ground raised by the Appellant with respect to levy ... interest u/s 234A, B, C of the Income tax Act, 1961["the Act), as not maintainable. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in: (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2388/MUM/2022[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel)
Section 143(3)Section 220Section 234Section 234ASection 254

quantification of the interest u/s 220 (2) was not in accordance with the law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B, C OF THE ACT 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing in limine the ground raised by the Appellant with respect to levy ... interest u/s 234A, B, C of the Income tax Act, 1961["the Act), as not maintainable. 4.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in: (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; and (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations

M/S Blue City Township & Colonizers, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

ITA 90/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

That the observation and the additions made are unjust, illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 15. That interest U/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly and illegally charged and has been wrongly worked out. 16. That

Satya Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3024/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

extent of Rs.3,20,65.633/-; 7. Not allowing claim for deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal

Rati Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3023/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

extent of Rs.3,20,65.633/-; 7. Not allowing claim for deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal

Satyabir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 54B

extent of Rs.3,20,65.633/-; 7. Not allowing claim for deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal

Mickey Shrivastva, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(5)Section 253Section 40a

opportunity of being heard not provided to the appellant. Prayed for one opportunity. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer further erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C at Rs. 8,50,565/- which is unjustified as the appellant never knew that above additions and disallowances will be made

Radha Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Imposing Tax On Assessee. The Action Of Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Bad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 69C

quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in imposing the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The action of authorities below is wrong, illegal, bad at law, misconceived and unjustified therefore

Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

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

ITA 259/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.259/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor Income Tax Officer, 6, Shiv Jal, Shailesh Park Ward-5, Navsari, Room Vs Society, Gandevi Road, Navsari- No.204, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 396445 Bhawan, Near Char Pool, Pan : Adept 7623 H Police Choki, Navsari- 396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 249(2)Section 254(1)Section 54B

respect of new agricultural land acquired. (4) Miscellaneous: 2 Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd. (a) The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234A of the Act. (b) The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. (c) The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234C

Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 39/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

given to the appellant in the interest of justice. (2) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding ground of charging interest U/s 234A, 234B, 234C on the facts and the said interest Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali Vs ITO charged U/s 234A, 234B, 234C to be deleted from computation

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

deleted in full. 6. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C,. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions

Dinesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

eyes of exchequer, therefore complete additions should be deleted. 5. Under the facts & Circumstances the learned AO was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B 2.1 Apropos Ground of appeal No. 1 to 4 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order

Shri Rampal Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 193/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250Section 27l(1)(c)Section 68o

penalty proceedings u/s 27l(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified

Indra Sharma, Noida vs. ITO(E), Ward-1(5), Noida

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

ITA 6559/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeal) Officer has erred in law and on facts in not deleting, charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. None appeared for the assessee. Several notice have been issued by the registry which were returned

M/S. Savvy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, these two appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1799/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. and Shri Vipin Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)

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, 2348, 234C and of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds