← 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

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

u/s 234A of the Act. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

u/s 234A of the Act. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C

Late Ramesh Mohanlal Jain (Through Legal Heir Mrs. Bhavna Ramesh Jain), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 518/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

facts and under the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer has erred in calculating the interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 7,30,323/-.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that certain information was received by the Assessing Officer (AO) through Actionable Information Monitory System (AIMS

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

assessment order. It is submitted it be so held now. 10. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal ... with the same and concluded that the applicant is eligible for deduction u/s 42. 7. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

assessment order. It is submitted it be so held now. 10. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal ... with the same and concluded that the applicant is eligible for deduction u/s 42. 7. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

assessment order. It is submitted it be so held now. 10. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal ... with the same and concluded that the applicant is eligible for deduction u/s 42. 7. The learned AO has erred in charging excess interest u/s 234B of the Act. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing

Sidhesh Mohan Raikar, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Banglore

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

ITA 294/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahkar
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 5A

call for requisite details. The appeal filed on Ground No 1 is Partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.2 Ground No. 2: Levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C: The Appellant has contested the levy of interest under section 234B/C which has arisen on the income tax liability raised after

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Vivek Kamalkar Kadam, Virar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2025[ 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Vivek Kamalkar Kadam Income Tax Officer, Namasthetubunglow No. 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road, Padmavati Nagar Phase 4, Near Vs. 16Z, Wagale Industrial Road, Mamta Super Market, Bolinj, Thane – 400604, Maharashtra. Virar West, Vasai – Virar, Maharashtra – 401305. [Pan: Adqpk2053E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of 12,50,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act, Being Part Of Loan Repayment, Ignoring That The Appellant Had Discharged The Initial Burden By Providing Comprehensive Evidence Of The Source, Including Affidavit, Confirmation, Itr & Audited Accounts Of Shri Shaikh, Which Establish Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transaction.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

contrary to judicial precedents holding that documentary evidence corroborates explanation under section 69A. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D, which being consequential ought to be deleted if the addition is deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify

Shri Hariom Jee Rice Mill, Rohtas vs. ACIT, Centralcircle-1, Patna

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

ITA 72/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

234C at Rs. 39,447/-. The return has been filed u/s 139(1) before due date, hence interest u/s 234A is not applicable. Interest u/s 234B is chargeable on income returned: The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating this ground of appeal. Interest as charged

Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel L/H Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navsari

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

ITA 345/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mahendra Jethalal Mamtora, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

rules made thereunder. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I T which was wholly wrong, and against the provisions of Income Tax At, 1961 and rules made thereunder

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT-CC-18, Delhi

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

ITA 3805/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

extended by CBDT from time to time and accordingly decide the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act. 19. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. 20. The chargeability of interest u/s 234D of the Act is also consequential in nature

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

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

ITA 760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

extended by CBDT from time to time and accordingly decide the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act. 19. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. 20. The chargeability of interest u/s 234D of the Act is also consequential in nature

Khadakala Seva Sahkari Manadli Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 199/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (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 : 28/11/2025 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

confirming the same. The same needs cancellation 4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging E interest U/s 234B of Rs. 16,140/-. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld. A.O. erred

Br Nath Pai Shikshan Sanstha, Kudal vs. ITO, Exemption, Exemption Ward

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1785/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1782, 1783 & 1785/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2020-21 To 2022-23 Br Nath Pai Shikshan Vs. Cpc, Bangalore. Sanstha, Plot No.4, Midc, Near Vayman Garden Compound, Sindhudurg- 416520. Appellant Respondent Pan: Aabtb1496N Assessee By : Shri P. P. Jayaraman Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata ['Ld. Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 To 2022-23 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1785/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2020-21 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri P. P. JayaramanFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

claimed in ITR was denied. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 5.3 Ground of appeal no. 2 is against charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. In this regard, it is to be stated that interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory in nature

Br Nath Pai Shikshan Sanstha, Kudal vs. ITO, Exemption

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1783/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1782, 1783 & 1785/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2020-21 To 2022-23 Br Nath Pai Shikshan | Vs. Cpc, Bangalore. Sanstha, Plot No.4, Midc, Near Vayman Garden Compound, Sindhudurg- 416520. Pan: Aabtb1496N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. P. Jayaraman Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata ['Ld. Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 To 2022-23 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1785/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2020-21 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri P. P. JayaramanFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

claimed in ITR was denied. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 5.3 Ground of appeal no. 2 is against charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. In this regard, it is to be stated that interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory in nature

Br Nath Pai Shikshan Sanstha, Kudal vs. ITO, Exemption, Exemption Ward

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1782/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1782, 1783 & 1785/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2020-21 To 2022-23 Br Nath Pai Shikshan Vs. Cpc, Bangalore. Sanstha, Plot No.4, Midc, Near Vayman Garden Compound, Sindhudurg- 416520. Pan: Aabtb1496N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. P. Jayaraman Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata ['Ld. Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 To 2022-23 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1785/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2020-21 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri P. P. JayaramanFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

claimed in ITR was denied. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 5.3 Ground of appeal no. 2 is against charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. In this regard, it is to be stated that interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory in nature

Sri Vinayaka Projects, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1598/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Vinayaka Projects C/O Chandrodaya Theatre Vidyapeeta Circle, Kathriguppa Main Road Bangalore 560 050 ………. Appellant [Pan: Achfs9700J]

For Appellant: Sri R. ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian
Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 7. The learned CIT ought to have directed the Assessing Authority to consider the self assessment tax of Rs.5

DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

credit of TDS if submission of appellant is found correct. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed. 6.8. Ground of Appeal No. 9– interest u/s 234B, is consequential in nature and not adjudicated. 6.9. Ground of Appeal No. 10– claim of education cess u/s