BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,109 results for “TDS”+ Section 139(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,109Delhi986Bangalore445Chennai403Kolkata320Jaipur180Hyderabad167Karnataka145Chandigarh144Ahmedabad134Pune121Indore102Cochin89Raipur73Visakhapatnam56Nagpur41Cuttack35Lucknow34Guwahati26Amritsar26Rajkot25Surat24Agra19Patna16Jodhpur15Allahabad8SC8Dehradun6Jabalpur5Panaji5Telangana5Kerala4Varanasi4Ranchi2Calcutta2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Addition to Income56TDS55Section 201(1)44Section 20137Section 25036Section 153A36Section 14835Deduction35Section 40

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3088/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Showing 1–20 of 1,109 · Page 1 of 56

...
34
Disallowance30
Section 14A29
ITA 3087/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2),, MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3086/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA-ISB BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 355/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3112/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA- NRI BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2744/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2764/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA-RBO II THANE WESTERN BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2765/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3089/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

STATE BANK OF INDIA HRMS DEPARTMENT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)RANGE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3111/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Anand Desai &For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

TDS (2021) 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai 123 taxmann.com 447 (Mumbai-Trib) allowed in favour of the in favour of the assess observing as under: assess observing as under: “8. A plain reading of the above provi 8. A plain reading of the above provisions does not indicate sions does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1835/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

section 139(5). Discovery of the omission or wrong statement made by the assessee itself is not sufficient to file the revised return within ambit of section 139(5)\"\n38.3. Going by the principles decided in the aforementioned decisions, for a revised return to be valid, the essential condition is that the assessee should not be aware of the mistake

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 8(3)(Osd) Confidence Petroleum India R.No.210 Ltd, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Vs. M.K. Rd. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul Chembur, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400074 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacd3658C Assessment Year: 2006-07 Confidence Petroleum India Acit 8(3)(Osd) Ltd, बनाम/ R.No.210 Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul M.K. Rd. Chembur, Mumbai-400074 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aajcs 6315G

Section 143(3)Section 144

5), it would apply when return of income is filed pursuant to section 139(1) or under section 142(1). 2.3.7 Therefore, the position of law is very clear, the moment a revised return is filed, it replaces the original return and, so to say, acquires the nature and character of the originally filed return. Therefore, the original return become

ACIT 8(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. CONFIDENCE PETROLEUM INIDA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 4276/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 8(3)(Osd) Confidence Petroleum India R.No.210 Ltd, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Vs. M.K. Rd. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul Chembur, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400074 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacd3658C Assessment Year: 2006-07 Confidence Petroleum India Acit 8(3)(Osd) Ltd, बनाम/ R.No.210 Gate No.2, D.R. Container, S Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jijamata, Nagar, Mahul M.K. Rd. Chembur, Mumbai-400074 Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aajcs 6315G

Section 143(3)Section 144

5), it would apply when return of income is filed pursuant to section 139(1) or under section 142(1). 2.3.7 Therefore, the position of law is very clear, the moment a revised return is filed, it replaces the original return and, so to say, acquires the nature and character of the originally filed return. Therefore, the original return become

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1816/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

section 139(5). Discovery of the omission or wrong\nstatement made by the assessee itself is not sufficient to file the revised return\nwithin ambit of section 139(5)\"\n38.3. Going by the principles decided in the aforementioned decisions,\nfor a revised return to be valid, the essential condition is that the\nassessee should not be aware of the mistake

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1815/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

section 139(5), “discovers any\nomission or wrong statement therein”. In this context we refer to the\ndecision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of PCIT Vs.\nTata Housing Development Company ltd. [2011] 45 SOT 9 (Mum) which\ndealt with the definition of the terms “omission”, “wrong statement” and\n“discover” as under:\ni. The word 'omission

DCIT, CIR-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, MUMBAI

ITA 1834/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

section 139(5), “discovers any\nomission or wrong statement therein”. In this context we refer to the\ndecision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of PCIT Vs.\nTata Housing Development Company ltd. [2011] 45 SOT 9 (Mum) which\ndealt with the definition of the terms “omission”, “wrong statement” and\n“discover” as under:\ni. The word 'omission

HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 942/MUM/2015[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalhindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Special Range–1, Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Circle–9(2)(1), Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–9(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri V. ChandrashekharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 143(3)Section 42(1)(a)

TDS. Ground raised is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground no.6, relating to levy of interest under section 220(2). 16. This ground being consequential does not require adjudication at this stage. 17. In the result, assessees appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA no.5534/Mum./2003 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 1997–98 18. In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against Rs. 1,25,90,372/- claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 6. Ground 6: Interest charged under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act The Id. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under