← 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

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 544/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

scheme of S. 143(1) of the Act. 7. Interest The Ld. Assessing officer erred in the order by demanding additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The Ld. Assessing officer erred in the order in as much as the addition made, tax and interest demanded ... sustainable in the scheme of S. 143(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in the order by demanding additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in the order in as much as the addition made

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

scheme of S. 143(1) of the Act. 7. Interest The Ld. Assessing officer erred in the order by demanding additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The Ld. Assessing officer erred in the order in as much as the addition made, tax and interest demanded ... sustainable in the scheme of S. 143(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in the order by demanding additional interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in the order in as much as the addition made

Sri. K. Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

assessee had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in which only the addition of Rs.6,42,21,000/- and levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are agitated, in addition to the addition of Rs.7,55,85,800/- made by the AO on protective basis

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

whereby income is recognized over a period of time following the matching concept of accounting. Besides this, assessee has also challenged levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D, which at the time of hearing Ld. Counsel submitted that are consequential in nature. 4. Apart from that, additional ground ... services is not sustainable. Hence, Ground no. 2, 3, & 4 is allowed. 18. The other grounds of revenue on account of levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature, therefore the same are dismissed. 17 I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 & Others M/s Red Hat India

Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 29 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 7372/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Asst. Cit-29(2), Hincon House, Lbs Marg, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Vikhroli (W), Vs. C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Mumbai-400083. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaah 8586 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash Kanojia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

deduction in AY 2015-16 as cost of opening construction WIP. 16 as cost of opening construction WIP. Amount of tax and interest u/s 234A and 234B be directly to be Amount of tax and interest u/s 234A and 234B be directly to be Amount of tax and interest u/s

Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 29 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 7365/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Asst. Cit-29(2), Hincon House, Lbs Marg, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Vikhroli (W), Vs. C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Mumbai-400083. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaah 8586 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash Kanojia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

deduction in AY 2015-16 as cost of opening construction WIP. 16 as cost of opening construction WIP. Amount of tax and interest u/s 234A and 234B be directly to be Amount of tax and interest u/s 234A and 234B be directly to be Amount of tax and interest u/s

Prashant Vijay Kale, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm National Faceless Appeal Prashant Vijay Kale Center 47-403, Swastik Residency, Centralized Processing Near Muchhala College, Vs. Gb Road Kavesar, Center, Income Tax Thane, Mumbai-400 615 Department, Bengaluru (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adapk8367M Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Adv Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 4(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

correct column. Thus ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 013. Ground number 4 is with respect to the charging of interest u/s 234A of ₹ 24,648 and ground number 5 with respect to the charging of the interest u/s 234B and 234C, ground number six is with respect

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

brought forward business loss from AY 2009– 10. 9. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in laws and in facts in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B and. 234C of the Act.‖ 5. During the course of hearing, at the outset, learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR‘), appearing for the assessee

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 308/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

K. G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &
Section 153A

acted upon makes the entire addition totally erroneous and such addition is to be deleted. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 10. In view of the above ... drawn being wholly erroneous both on facts and law is to be rejected in toto. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 11. In view of the above and on other

Arundhathi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Arundhathi, Ito, Vs. 760, 60Th Cross, 5Th Block, Ward – 2(2)(2), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 010. Pan : Aaxpa 4328 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

order of the AO. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not adjudicated as separate appeal lies against the imposition of penalty. Levy of interest u/s 234A,B,C is mandatory and consequential. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,90,0001- made by the AO is hereby sustained and all the grounds

Late Rehmatunisa A. Sayed Through L/H Salimullah A. Sayed (Son), Mumbai vs. The ITO-34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1405/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyallate Rehmatunisa A. Vs. The Ito – 34(2)(1) Sayed Through L/H Bandra Kurla Salimullah A. Sayed Complex, C-11 (Son), Bandra(East), C/11/82, Mig Colony, Mumbai- 400051. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Dbpps7580J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the ley of interest u/s 234A and 234B as receipt of Rs. 25,21,508/- was not expected as liable to tax at the time of estimating a income for advance

M/S. L G Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2412/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, DR
Section 234ASection 92CSection 92E

No.2412/Bang/2019 M/s. LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 33 17. Ground No.17 is with regard to the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the assessee filed the return of income before due date and therefore levy ... interest u/s 234A of the Act is unwarranted and is to be deleted. Further, it was submitted that draft assessment order did not contain this interest computation. Hence, no ground is raised before the Ld. DRP. This ground is remitted to AO/TPO to consider chargeability of interest u/s 234A

Amit Lalit Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

ITA 2009/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

For Appellant: Shri Ashvini Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhaskaran, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)Section 68

maintaining books of account and Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition. 10. That, the Ld AO has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 on wholly illegal, erroneous and untenable grounds. 11. That in view of facts and circumstances

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

same may be upheld. Other than Transfer Pricing related. (3) The lower authorities erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. Submission: Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act are consequential in nature and it is automatic

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

higher and not a best judgment assessment. 5. The Learned CIT ought to have held that the Assessing Officer had erred in levying interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; 6. The appellant was not served notice/s issued u/s 142(1) by the Learned Assessing ... ground nos. 4 and 5 are dismissed. The ground no. 5 is with regard to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I T Act which are consequential and dependants 6 Rekha Prakash Nichani on filing of return, admission of total income and determination of total income