← All Phrases

“interest u/s 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,217 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest u/s 234B is DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC (313 ITR 187), cited in 144 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest u/s 234B

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC
313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court
144
citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

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.

27th Nov., 2001 and Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. Dy. CIT
72 ITD 415 · 2000 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B is not leviable if the entire income of the assessee is liable to tax deduction at source, irrespective of whether tax was actually deducted.

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.

MBG Commodities (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 ITD 130 · 2017 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B needs to be recalculated, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering judicial decisions.

CIT vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. (2004) and CIT v. Reading and Bates Exploration Co.
278 ITR 47 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Interest under section 234 cannot be levied if the employer fails to deduct tax at source, as the employee should not be faulted for the employer's default.

Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income
18 SCC 353 · 2020 · Reported
12
citing judgments

An assessment made in the name of a company that has been amalgamated and dissolved is null and void.

Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tar, (2011 SCC OnLine Del), CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd.
2014 SCC OnLine DEL 7678 · 2014 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The court does not interfere with impugned judgments previously passed by the High Court in cases dealing with various aspects of income tax law.

Judgments citing interest u/s 234B

Late Soli C. Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

that levy of interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 88,538/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 50,106/- as per the return of income. 3 ITA No.1983,1984,1985/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Firuzeh Soli Engineer ... that levy of interest u/s.234C amounting to Rs. 189,832/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 1,76,139/- as per the return of income.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The assessee

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1984/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

that levy of interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 88,538/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 50,106/- as per the return of income. 3 ITA No.1983,1984,1985/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Firuzeh Soli Engineer ... that levy of interest u/s.234C amounting to Rs. 189,832/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 1,76,139/- as per the return of income.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The assessee

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

that levy of interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 88,538/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 50,106/- as per the return of income. 3 ITA No.1983,1984,1985/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Firuzeh Soli Engineer ... that levy of interest u/s.234C amounting to Rs. 189,832/-.is erroneous and illegal, and the same is required to be restricted to interest u/s 234B of Rs. 1,76,139/- as per the return of income.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The assessee

Quent Chem, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6914/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Quent Chem, Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Shiv Dutta, Income Tax, Topiwala Lane, Vs. Circle-41(4)(1), Goregaon West, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400104. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aaafq3430G Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bhavya Sundesha For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Computing Income From Business Or Profession Of Rs.3,72,70,389/-. The Assessing Officer Has Added An Income Of Rs.78,61,560/- In The Computation Sheet By Passing An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Amount Refers To The Interest Paid To The Partners By The Partnership Firm. This Interest Of Rs.78,61,558/- Has Been Correctly Disclosed In The Computation Of Income & Also In The Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 40

Auditor did not have any reasons to disallow the Interest paid to Partners. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 3,37,198/- and u/s 234C of Rs.2,15,149/-.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

income at Rs. 3,56,62,789 without issue of notice u/s 143(2). 3. Serious violation of natural justice. 4. Levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 5. Your appellant craves for leave to add, alter modify, amend and delete any of abovementioned grounds.” 2. Rival submissions

Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 20/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 50CSection 55A

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B & 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course

Radhe Finsec India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 506/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234A

made to the returned income of the Appellant be deleted. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act and the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the same by not entertaining the ground on the merits

Sameer Shrikant Pise, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 1078/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva - Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154

case of Motorola Inc. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 TTJ (Del) (SB) 1, the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench has held that levying of interest u/s 234B was mandatory in the sense that it cannot be waived or reduced by the I.T. authorities. The appellant has contended 5 ITA.No.1078/PUN/2025 that interest

Samsung C and T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 234B

jurisdictional High Court/Supreme Court and hence, is liable to be reversed. 7. That Ld. CPC, Bangalore is not justified in charging interest U/s 234B and 234C of the Inco me Tax Act which is contrary to facts borne on record and provisions of law. As such interest levied

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appellant ground of appeal against charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D when prepaid taxes were more than the tax payable determined on assessment. 4. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice ... thus the same is dismissed. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 14. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the levy of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act wherein interest levied u/s 234B is consequential in nature and interest u/s 234D is on account of refund already

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appellant ground of appeal against charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D when prepaid taxes were more than the tax payable determined on assessment. 4. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice ... thus the same is dismissed. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 14. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the levy of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act wherein interest levied u/s 234B is consequential in nature and interest u/s 234D is on account of refund already

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appellant ground of appeal against charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D when prepaid taxes were more than the tax payable determined on assessment. 4. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice ... thus the same is dismissed. ITA Nos.826 & 1000/Del/2016, 4693 & 4760/Del/2019 & 504/Del/2022 14. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the levy of interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act wherein interest levied u/s 234B is consequential in nature and interest u/s 234D is on account of refund already

Jusco Education Mission Foundation, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(15)Section 234B

Jurisdictional High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Ajay Prakash in TA No. 38 of 2010 and confirming the charging of interest u/s 234B on the assessed income. Interest u/s 234B should have been charged on returned income. 7. For the assessee begs leave to add, alter and withdraw

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Formula One Marketing II Limited, United Kingdom

ITA 5092/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 195Section 209Section 234ASection 234B

observed in impugned order that it is a settled law by virtue of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment that interest u/s 234B is not applicable to the assessee and accordingly the interest levied by the AO u/s 234B is incorrect. Relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced ... under: “ 5.3.5 The non-applicability of interest u/s 234B of the Act has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitsubishi Corporation (130 taxmann.com 276) on 17.09.2021 wherein, it has been held that interest u/s 234B is not applicable in the hands

Jatin Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1833/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 44ASection 68

capriciously invoking section 68 of the Act; d. not allowing credit for self-assessment tax in a sum of Rs.55.542/-; e. charging interest u/s 234B of the Act; The above actions are being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 2. The facts

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs.12,20,242 and accordingly compute the total tax liability thereon. 3. Re.: Interest u/s 234B of the Act has been levied in excess: 1. The AO/CPC has erred in levying excessive interest u/s 234B of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant ... against Rs.12,20,242/-. No relief u/s 91 of the Act was allowed. The tax payable was determined at Rs.3,67,960/- including interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Subsequently, ITA No.1240/SRT/2024/AY.23-24 Amitkumar P Reshamwala order u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 09.01.2024 raising a demand

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging of legally disputable interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the IT Act, 1961("the Act") on Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,01,25,015 and u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,95804 totalling to Rs.2

M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging of legally disputable interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the IT Act, 1961("the Act") on Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,01,25,015 and u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,95804 totalling to Rs.2

ACIT, Cir-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Known As M/S Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging of legally disputable interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the IT Act, 1961("the Act") on Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,01,25,015 and u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,95804 totalling to Rs.2

Binani Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xxviii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging of legally disputable interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the IT Act, 1961("the Act") on Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- Central I erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,01,25,015 and u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,95804 totalling to Rs.2