“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)

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. As per the amended provision of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, any bad debt written off in the books of account as irrecoverable is an allowable deduction. The effect ... been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of TRF Ltd VS CIT (supra). Therefore, once the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) are fulfilled, assessee's claim has to be allowed. Keeping in view the uncontroverted factual position that the conditions of section 36(1

Atc Logistical Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

revenue’s favour as under: - “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) - which defines various

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

thus making an addition of Rs 12,82,64,760/- in the total Income declared by the assessee on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delay in depositing employee contribution of PF/ESI (Rs 12,82,40,760/-) and on account on income of House property

Innovatiview India Private Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1081/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date & Has Wrongly Applied Provision Of Sec 143(1) & Section 2(24)(X) Read M/S Innovatiview India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

wrongly applied provision of sec 143(1) and section 2(24)(x) read M/s Innovatiview India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in the instant case in arbitrary and mechanical manner, without application of mind. That the impugned intimation issued u/s 143(1 ... gross total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,81,99,123/- by making addition of Rs. 6,44,998/- as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that sum received from Employees as M/s Innovatiview India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO contribution to Provident fund

The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar vs. M/S 2D Enterprise, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 278/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

disallowance of claim of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 6,01,424/- on unsecured loans. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that as per section 36(1)(iii), the deemed interest is on consequential basis and therefore the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same on these unsecured loans

Ila Sanat Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2506/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

partnership firm, M/s D A Jhaveri @3%. Against the said interest, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act (the Act, in short) towards interest paid at Rs.41,08,512/- resulting in a claim of loss ... assessment year 2015-16 was invested as loan to the partnership firm for the purpose of business enhancement and therefore, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) has been claimed against the interest earned on the loan amount from the partnership firm. The assessee further filed the bank statement

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

entering into the issue whether the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business, hence, allowable under section 36(1)(iii), we hold that in view of the fact that the loan liability for which assessee has claimed deduction of the interest expenditure, since

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Dam Capital Advisors Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1991/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 92E

1. Under the facts and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 56,50,7527- under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submission ... notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the following disallowance:- Sr.No. Nature of Addition Amount – Rs. 1 Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 57(iii) 56,50,752 2 Addition towards business loss held as speculation loss 15,48,647 3 Addition towards bonus liability

Scns Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, disallowance in principle is confirmed, but restricted up to Rs

ITA 2170/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalscns Private Limited 21 A Chapel Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aazcs2004A ...... Appellant Vs. Cpc Bengalure Begaluru-560 500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT (A), NFAC) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,32,865/- under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1. under the facts and in law CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate the submission made ... Bombay). 1.4. Under the facts and in law, CIT(A), NFAC erred in stating that the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 in section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature as these provisions create liability for the appellant and therefore

Haryana Traders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 657/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

wherein it was held that due date for deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF, ESI funds etc. applies under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act does not cover employees’ contribution to PF, ESI, etc. deducted by the employer from salaries of employees

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1643/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Aditya Birla Fashion & बिधम / Acit, Cpc, Retail Ltd. Piramal Agastya Bengaluru, Vs. Corporate Park, Building A, Karnataka-560500. 4Th & 5Th Floor, L.B.S. Road, Kurla-Mumbai-400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2371C (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Alam, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

tune of Rs. 14,70,00,661/- as well as disallowing the Employees Contribution towards PF for late deposit under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 29,96,545/-. By doing so, the losses claimed by the assessee has been determined

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

either (i) employer’s contribution to the gratuity fund 4 A.Y. 2017-18 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd governed by the provisions of section 36(1)(v) r.w.s. section 43B of the Act or and (ii) provision made by the assessee for payment of gratuity to its employees governed ... Savita Oil Technologies Ltd gratuity fund of Rs.83,69,981/- representing the employer’s contribution is allowable or not u/s 40A(7) or section 36(1)(v) read with section 43B of the Act. It would gainful to have a look at the relevant provisions. Section 36(1

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1762/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees’ contribution on account of PF/ESIC made after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Bihari Lal Menghani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Bihari Lal Menghani, Dcit 2Nd Circle – 34 (1) Wz-13, Floor, Bindra Vs New Delhi Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi Pan No.Aaffb5151N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Court has held as under :- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Arise India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3962/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Years : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Acit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Dated 23.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Dated 27.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 68

made by the AO on account of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI deposited beyond the due date u/s 2(24) (x) r.w. section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Arise India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5714/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 68

Padma Dhurway, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

discernible from the records, the CPC, while processing the return of income of the assessee, had triggered the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.1,35,94,651/- [EPF: Rs.56,44,834/- & Rs.52,27,443/- AND ESI: Rs.19,87,679/- & Rs.7 ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 438, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Bihari Lal Menghani, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1623/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

1678/Del/2017 & 1623/Del/2020 Bihari lal Menghani “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

accounting standard, the assessee has to recognise the expenditure on deferred basis, which the assessee rightfully did, however, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, there is no such provision that the expense be deferred over the period of loan. The Section clearly provides that