← All Phrases

“interest u/s 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,217 judgments

FAIRCHEM ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarfairchem Organics Acit Circle - Limited 15(1)(1), 253/P & 312, Village Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. Chekhala, Sanand K. Road, Churchgate, Kadi Highway, Taluka Mumbai-400 020 Sanand, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382 115. Pan/Gir No. Aadcf6900E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ankit Tiwari, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

capital advances for purchase of capital assets required for regular upgradation & for replacement of old equipment/parts in the manufacturing plant. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234B/ 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

income, nor any other default according to law by the assessee. 16. That the Ld. A.O has erred in law in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act on wholly illegal and untenable grounds. 5 17. That each ground of objection is independent and without prejudice to other grounds ... allowed for statistical purposes. 49. Ground Nos.15 and 16 raised by the assessee in respect of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A and interest u/s 234B which are pre-mature at this stage and therefore, are dismissed. 40 50. Ground nos 17 and 18 raised by the assessee, being general

PUNITA KALPESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2054/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 54FSection 94(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

following effect :\n\"4.3 Ground 3: Disallowance of Deduction for Reversal of Interest de trace of Deduction for Reversal of interest u/s 234B & 234C\nThe appellant contends that interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C in original assessment orders was previously debited to the Profit & Loss Account and subsequently added

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

following effect :\n\"4.3 Ground 3: Disallowance of Deduction for Reversal of Interest de trace of\nDeduction for Reversal of interest u/s 234B & 234C\nThe appellant contends that interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C\nin original assessment orders was previously debited to the Profit & Loss\nAccount and subsequently added

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44C

view that no\ninterest under section 234B of the Act can be levied for the tax demand on account\nof ECB interest and interest u/s 234B is also not chargeable since ECB interest\nreceived by the assessee from the borrowers was subject to tax deduction at source\nu/s

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2367/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(13)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on the additional income agreed as per the Advance Pricing Agreement entered between the appellant and the Central Board ... findings of the Coordinate Bench on this issue are as under:- “33. The additional ground of appeal is directed against levying of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act on additional income arising on account of APA entered into by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

merit in not considering the Form 10-IC filed after due date. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case no interest u/s 234B and 234C should have been charged without prejudice, interest charged is excessive. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

RAJENDER KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6147/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

being alleged cash payments of Rs.6,53,138/- made against salary expenses. 6. The Id. CIT (A) erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act and without prejudice the same is excessive. 7. The assessment order as well as appellate order is against the facts and circumstances

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6146/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

being alleged cash payments of Rs.6,53,138/- made against salary expenses. 6. The Id. CIT (A) erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act and without prejudice the same is excessive. 7. The assessment order as well as appellate order is against the facts and circumstances

PUNIT KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -25, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpunit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aadpg8050H (Appellant) (Respondent) Amit Kumar Gupta, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aeupg5175Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajender Kumar Gupta The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sachin Kumar, Income Tax, Chartered Accountant, Vs. Central Circle-25, 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi-110007. [ Pan-Aezpg8253L (Appellant) (Respondent) Punit Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Acit

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69A

being alleged cash payments of Rs.6,53,138/- made against salary expenses. 6. The Id. CIT (A) erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act and without prejudice the same is excessive. 7. The assessment order as well as appellate order is against the facts and circumstances

KRC GEMS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5596/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271A

circumstances of the case the\nLd. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the learned assessing\nofficer has erred in charging interest u/s 234B is illegal and\nwithout prejudice it is excessive.\n3. The assessee has raised legal issue with regard to issuance of\nnotice under section

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69C

basis of assumption and presumption. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld AOgrossly erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 20. That petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any addition or alternative ground at or before the time

DEEYA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 492/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

case, submissions made before him. 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Rs. 90,072 which is excessive, even when interest under this section is chargeable as per sub section (3) of section 234B

RANJODH SINGH BHATTI ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KHANNA, KHANNA

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1543/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1543/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Ranjodh Singh Bhatti Ito Ward -3 C/O Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Khanna - 141401 बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector-10 D, Chandigarh - 160011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bndpb-1030-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-02-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021- 22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Dated 15-11-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 154 On 09-06-2025. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

wherein CPC raised demand of Rs.1,71,480/- which primarily stem from the fact the CPC charged interest u/s 234B. The assessee sought rectification u/s 154 which stood rejected by CPC on 09-06-2025. Against rejection of rectification as sought by the assessee, the assessee preferred further appeal ... further appeal before us. 3. We find that the sole grievance of the assessee stem from intimation u/s 143(1) qua charging of interest u/s 234B. The assessee preferred rectification route to get his grievance resolved which did not fructify. Left with no option, the assessee preferred further appeal against

SWARAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5457/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Bhardwaj, Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

Swaraj Enterprises Ground No. 6: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of in retail as well as wholesale sale

VIMARSH PRAKASHBHAI VASAVADA,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

ITA 2653/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 234CSection 271ASection 54FSection 69A

amounting to Rs. 2,18,97,803. 8. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act. 9. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234C of the Act. 10. The learned AO erred in fact

JAGDEEP SINGH DHANOA,UNITED ARAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER IT 2(1) (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1681/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarjagdeep Singh Dhanoa Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8202, 23 Marina, Po Pox It (2)(1), Mumbai 73392, Dubai Marina Dubai 1724, 17Th Floor, Air Ar, Foreign, India Building, United Arab Emirates- Nariman Point, 73392 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadpd4843R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 26.04.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) (1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

Appellant had furnished the return of income on 27 November 2017). 4.2 The Id. AO had also erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act, having regard to proviso to s. 209(1)(d) of the Act which is not applicable to the Appellant's case.” 2. None appeared

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

No.709/Hyd/2012 & CO No.138/Hyd/2012 Action For Welfare And Awakening In Rural Environment (AWARE) 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not holding that interest u/s 234B of the I.T.Act cannot be charged under the circumstances. 25. Under grounds No. 1 and 2 of the C.O., the assessee has objected that

CHETAN SHASHIKANT THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7320/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) the LD. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B\nand 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is consequential in nature\nand liable to be deleted.\n3. Brief facts of the case

Showing 1–20 of 1,217 · Page 1 of 61

...