“Section 36(1)”

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

income at Rs. 35,39,29,360/- by making an addition of Rs. 68,14,949/- on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the balance sheet that the assessee had made ... demonstrate commercial expediency in granting such advances and also failed to establish nexus between own funds and advances. Relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

raised in Revenue's appeal is\nallowed.\n25.\nGround No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation\nof deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.\n26.\nWe have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the\nmaterial available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under\nsection 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)\nof the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the\nassessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be\ncomputed before computing the deduction

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

raised in Revenue's appeal is\nallowed.\n25.\nGround No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation\nof deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.\n26.\nWe have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the\nmaterial available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under\nsection 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)\nof the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the\nassessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be\ncomputed before computing the deduction

ACIT22(1), MUMBAI vs. UNIQUE BANGLES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

under section 68 on account of unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits – Rs. 47,13,589/-. 4 Unique Bangles 3. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to provident fund – Rs. 2,480/-. 5. While making the disallowance under section ... justified and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 47,13,589/-. 6 Unique Bangles 9. However, with regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 2,480/-, the CIT(A) recorded that no specific submission was made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings

WELKIN DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

High Court in case of CIT vs.\nDhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for\nclaiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of\nthe real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property.\nFurther, single bench ... assessee.\nConsequently, the interest incurred on borrowed funds for acquisition of such\nland cannot be disallowed by invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(iii), as the\nconcept of “put to use” is applicable only to capital assets and not to inventory\nheld in the course of business.\nA similar

WELKIN DEVEOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of the real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property. Further, single bench ... wrong interpretation of law and therefore, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) is not in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is into the business of Real Estate Development

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEETAL JEWELLERYHOUSE LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiaacit 19(3), Mumbai Sheetal Jewellery House Llp Room No. 513, 5Th Floor, Piramal Vs. 503/504, Brahans Business Park, Chamber, Parel Mumbai 400012 Off Mahakali, Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqfs9693D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे / Assessee By: Shri. Paresh Shaparia /Revenue By: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee [J.M]: Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)"] Order Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] Order Passed For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Date Of Order 25.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao"], Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 26.12.2022. 2

debts of Rs.3,61,20,866/- in books of accounts. With respect to the claim of bad debts, the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are reproduced hereunder: “Section 36(1)(vii) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof ... include any provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the accounts of the assesse" On perusal of the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii), it is observed that Bad Debts of a business are allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) which inter alia provides

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest\nunder section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee\nhas failed to furnish conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the\ninvestments were, in fact, made exclusively ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest\nunder section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the\nBombay Minerals Ltd. 3\nITA No. 5408, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025\njudgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High