“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

Lalmuni Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 18/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 48Section 50CSection 55

cost of improvement amount was completely ignored. 4. Section 234A. I filed my ITR for ay 2013-14 on time. Therefore interest u/s 234A should not be levied. 5. Section 234B. Since there was long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts

Sheetal Bathla, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Kota, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

full. 4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B,C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

full. 4. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B, C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same

Niteshkumar Gandabhai Patel, Chanasma, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan, Gujarat

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

ITA 1424/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarniteshkumar Gandabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Vs. Village Ranasan, Post Ziliya, Ward 1, At Ranasan, Patan Tal. Chanasma, Patan-384220. [Pan: Altpp7508 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.V. Agrawal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R

Section 115BSection 234ASection 234B

business receipts ad it is not out of Unsecured loans taken by assessee. 4. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming interest u/s 234A of Rs. 78,090 and u/s 234B of Rs. 5,77,866 charged by A.O.” 3. On perusal of the record, we find that there

Rockwell Automation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3861/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalrockwell Automation India Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Registered Address: 131, Vs. Delhi. Functional Industrial Are, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 Communication Address: 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr3791A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain, Ar Department By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ae That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing / Assembling Of Automation & Industrial Control Products / Systems. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Reference Was Made To The Tpo Due With Transactions With Ae’S. The Return Of Income Was Filed On Rockwell Automation India Private Limited Vs. Dcit 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.97,08,46,360/-. The Tpo Vide Its Order Dated 28.07.2023 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act Has Proposed Adjustments Totaling To Rs. 26,12,44,668/-. Thereafter, The Ao Has Passed The Draft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 27.09.2023 Wherein The Ao Has Proposed The Additions Towards The Tp Adjustment As Per Tpo’S Order & Proposed To Assess The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,88,57,458/- & Further Proposed To Disallow Relief Claimed U/S 90/90A At Rs.1,04,60,287/-. Against The Draft Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed Objections Before The Drp.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 90Section 90ASection 92C

ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 36. Ground of appeal No.22 to 23 of assessee are with respect to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. We direct the AO to charge the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act on the income

Vishal Ashok Chugera, Pune vs. DCIT, Cental Circle-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 438/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 37Section 57Section 68

raised by the appellant stand PARTLY ALLOWED. 37. The ground no. 9 raised by the appellant is regarding levy of interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act. No separate submission has been made in this regard by the appellant. Furthermore, it is a settled position that charging

Anand Kumar Bansal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur -1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

omission of the above fact has led to escapement of income Rs.754202/- which tantamount to under levy of tax of RS,226529/- and interest u/s 234A and 234B of Rs.27183/- and Rs.244651/- respectively causing thereby under levy of aggregate tax and interest of Rs.271835/- in the hands of the legal ... omission of the above fact has led to escapement of income of Rs.754202/- which tantamount to under levy of tax of R.226529/- and interest u/s 234A and 234B of Rs.27183/- and Rs.244651/- respectively causing thereby under levy of aggregate tax and interest of Rs.271835/- in the hands of the legal

Jitendra Singh, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 548/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), 107/2, Babu Purwa Colony, Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Cvxps1754F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 12.07.2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Assessing Officer On 22.07.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 12.07.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Initio. 2. That The Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Have Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order Without Considering The Request Of The Appellant That The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order So The Rectification Order U/S 154 By The A.O. For Enhancing The Demand Not Justified In Natural Justice. 3. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Follow The Provision U/S 115Bbe Properly As Per Law Of Income F Tax So, The Rectification Process U/S 154 Is Bad In Law. 4. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Levy Of Interest U/S 234A & U/S 234B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

u/s 154 is bad in law. 4. That on facts and in law the CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the original appeal filed on 15.09.2019 for the same A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 147/143

Van Bros Construction Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2381/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2381/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम Van Bros Construction Pvt. Ltd., Assessment Unit B-113, Lajpat Nagar-1, Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi. National Faceless Appeal, Pan No.Aaacv1092J Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234D

order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates to calculation of interest u/s 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. That the AO’s order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case ... order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates to calculation of interest u/s 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. That the AO's order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pawan Kumar Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-41, Beta-1, Greater Noida, Income Tax Departmemt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan: Abrps9989C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

amounts credits to his bank account. 4. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act without considering the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. 5. That the appellant assails its right to amend

Abdul Rashid Khan, Dholpur vs. ITO-1, Bharatpur

ITA 1080/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gorav Agarwal, CA (through VH)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)

r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act at a total income of Rs. 55,27,617/- for A.Y. 2015-16. Charged interest u/s 234A, B & C as per law. issued demand notice, challan accordingly after giving credit of prepaid taxes. Issued show case notice for penalty u/s

Prameela Porika, Suryapet vs. ACIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 593/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula

Section 270A

income taxable u/s 115BBE of the I.T Act 7) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A & 23B of the I.T Act 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;” 6. The brief facts of the case

Anand Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

ITA 1378/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 24Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Y P Steel Exim Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4306/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Y P Steel Exim Private Limited Dcit, Circle -1, Mumbai, 5 2N Floor Nanuram Dr. Ambedkar Vs Mohan Plaza Kalyan, Road, Kalyan West, Kalyan- Kalyan-Dombivali, Dombivali, Maharashtra – 421301. Maharashtra - 421301. [Pan: Aaacy5906A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 270ASection 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Honble CIT(A) legally erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest u/s 234A of the Act at Rs.58,948 and u/s 234B of the Act at Rs.21,81,076. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2744/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali International Tax, B 1502 Tower 1 Ward-1(2)(1), Lbs Marg, Vikas Paradise, Mumbai Mulund West, Vs. Mumbai – 400080 (Pan: Anjpb5957H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

calculation of tax u/s 115BEE being the highest tax bracket. Ground No. 4: The Ld CIT(A) not justified in confirming levy interest u/s 234A, u/s234B & u/s234C Ground No. 5: The Ld CIT(A) not justified in confirming initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) or any other section. Ground

Tungsten Automation England Ltd, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Intl Taxation Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1957/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 147Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

premature, hence ground no.23 is dismissed. 13. In ground no.24 to 26 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234F of the Act. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B is mandatory and consequential, hence, the said grounds of appeal are dismissed

Sunil Kumar Mehta, Dariapur vs. I.T.O. Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 265/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.265/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sunik Kumar Mehta बनाम/ Ito, A – 24, Asthvinayak Complex, Vs. Ward- 2(2)(1), Dariapur, Ahmedabad - 380004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Allpm1108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Chirag Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

directed to add Rs.8,95,364/- and delete the remaining addition. The grounds are accordingly partly allowed. 11. The charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C is consequential. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjum M. H. Ghaswala, 255 ITR 1 (SC) has held that levy

Brijeshkumar Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1333/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

adjudication on merits. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act are unjustified.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 201/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234A of Rs. 3,948/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 4. The Ld. A.O. erred ... erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. 3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2916/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in conforming the same. The same needs cancellation. ITA Nos. 200 & 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 200/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P