← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

Rup Kumar Ramchandani, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(2), Ajmer

ITA 1258/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 24Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

there was a solitary issue involved in the present appeal pertaining to disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee as business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The quantum of disallowance of interest amounts to Rs.6,71,628/- and the disallowance was made finding the said expenditure ... business use, the interest paid on the capital borrowed for acquisition of a capital asset does not qualify for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute the position of law as stated by the ld. CIT(A) that prior

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.1 The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the amount of Rs 147.38 crs claimed under section 36(1)(vii) is not a write off. 3.2 The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that an amount Rs 155.55 crs has been claim excessively u/s 36 ... treating it as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the claim under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable on incremental advances only and not on outstanding advances. :-3-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 5.1 Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

deposited after the statutory due date, then the amount contributed by the employees will be income of the assessee under provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also explained the difference between employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution ... employer’s contribution falls under section 43B, while employees’ contribution is governed only by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, section 43B of the Act cannot override section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

deposited after the statutory due date, then the amount contributed by the employees will be income of the assessee under provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also explained the difference between employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution ... employer’s contribution falls under section 43B, while employees’ contribution is governed only by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, section 43B of the Act cannot override section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 635/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, #133/1 The Residency, 2Nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Narendra Sharma AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

free loan to its related parties after taking the borrowings and limited interest expenses in its books. After considering the submissions, AO applied section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and calculated disallowance of Rs.3,65,48,861/-. 3. Further, on scrutiny of accounts it is observed that assessee ... Taxman 74 (SC) and further submitted that if the loans and advances are given for commercial expediency no addition can be made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities and submitted that assessee has very

Rohini Maruti Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

year 2000- 01. According to the learned ASG, even otherwise, the expenditure on interest could not have been claimed in law, as under section 36(1)(iii), only the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed

Tulsabai Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

year 2000- 01. According to the learned ASG, even otherwise, the expenditure on interest could not have been claimed in law, as under section 36(1)(iii), only the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed

Amol Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

year 2000- 01. According to the learned ASG, even otherwise, the expenditure on interest could not have been claimed in law, as under section 36(1)(iii), only the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Power Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3989/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Acit-15(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Revenue-अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Court that if interest-free funds were available to the assessee which were sufficient to meet its investments in subsidiaries, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) could be made. It is noted that the above case laws are applicable to the facts of the instant case, since ... High Court is correct in holding that interest amount being interest referable to funds given to subsidiaries is allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act'), when the interest would not have been payable to banks, if funds were

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), C.R Building, ITO New Delhi vs. M M Healthcare Ltd., Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Anand Vihar, Delhi

ITA 3522/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Pushpanjali, East Delhi, New Delhi Anand Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.238/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3522/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Tax, Circle-16(1), Anand Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.3522/Del/2025 Along With The Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No.238/Del/2025 For Assessment

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

uploaded therewith nowhere indicated even that the impugned bad debts of Rs.7.30 crores represented a capital expenditure so as to be disallowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee has further quoted various recent judicial precedents i.e. CIT Vs. GVK Industries Ltd. [2023] 147 (Telangana), Khatau Junkar

M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 4549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2015-16] M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Acit Pvt. Ltd. 4852/24, First Floor, Central Circle – 20 Near Sanjivan Hospital Vs New Delhi Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan-Aadcm9406A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 251Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

addition of Rs. 5,75,38,704/- for disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1) (vii) and the same deserves to be deleted. 6 That under the facts and circumstances of the case, both the low authorities were not justified ... Ground of appeal no.5 is regarding the addition of Rs.5,75,38,704/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and its confirmation by the ld. CIT(A) and ground of appeal no.6 is regarding the non-acceptance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Nutricraft India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

whether there were any extra services for payment of huge remuneration rendered by the Directors thus making it fall under exceptions as per section 36(1)(ii) for it to be eligible for deduction. d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ... found that assessee has paid a remuneration to its director amounting to ₹ 11,39,00,000/- which is hit by the provisions of section 36 (1) (ii) of the act, so he disallowed the excess amount compared to earlier years holding that :- Page 6 of 18 “4. Disallowance of Bonus

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Indusind Media and Communication Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3945/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in deleting the addition of * 34,04,27,023/- made on account of disallowance of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee failed to furnish basic and verifiable details such as PAN, address, and identity of the debtors, which are essential ... erred in holding that mere write-off in the books of accounts is sufficient to allow bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), without considering that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the debt was previously taken into account as income and that recovery steps

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2198/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

learned CIT(A) failed to realize that the law on the subject had changed w.e.f 01/04/2016 after insertion of clause (xvii) in section 36(1) whereby the price approved by the Government ought to have been allowed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT by its Circular

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2197/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

learned CIT(A) failed to realize that the law on the subject had changed w.e.f 01/04/2016 after insertion of clause (xvii) in section 36(1) whereby the price approved by the Government ought to have been allowed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT by its Circular

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2196/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

learned CIT(A) failed to realize that the law on the subject had changed w.e.f 01/04/2016 after insertion of clause (xvii) in section 36(1) whereby the price approved by the Government ought to have been allowed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT by its Circular

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2195/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

learned CIT(A) failed to realize that the law on the subject had changed w.e.f 01/04/2016 after insertion of clause (xvii) in section 36(1) whereby the price approved by the Government ought to have been allowed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT by its Circular

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2194/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

learned CIT(A) failed to realize that the law on the subject had changed w.e.f 01/04/2016 after insertion of clause (xvii) in section 36(1) whereby the price approved by the Government ought to have been allowed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT by its Circular

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4926/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

being interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds utilised for acquisition of capital assets, holding the same to be not allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The said disallowance was confirmed by the learned first appellate authority in the quantum proceedings. No further appeal was preferred ... facts relating to the claim of interest expenditure. The disallowance arose out of a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, particularly on the question whether the acquisition of assets constituted extension of business or merely expansion of the existing business