← 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)

Sai Computers Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(2)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2865/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerning AY 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,18,73,047/- 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under the respective Acts applies to the employees’ contribution and the statute has treated employees and employers contribution differently after the insertion of Section 36(1)(va) in the statute. Thus, the crux of the judgment in Checkmate (supra) is that employees’ contribution stands on a different footing than employer

Sai Computers Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(2) (1), Meerut

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

ITA 2864/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerning AY 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,18,73,047/- 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under the respective Acts applies to the employees’ contribution and the statute has treated employees and employers contribution differently after the insertion of Section 36(1)(va) in the statute. Thus, the crux of the judgment in Checkmate (supra) is that employees’ contribution stands on a different footing than employer

Sai Computers Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerning AY 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,18,73,047/- 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under the respective Acts applies to the employees’ contribution and the statute has treated employees and employers contribution differently after the insertion of Section 36(1)(va) in the statute. Thus, the crux of the judgment in Checkmate (supra) is that employees’ contribution stands on a different footing than employer

Sai Computers Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(2)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2862/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerning AY 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,18,73,047/- 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under the respective Acts applies to the employees’ contribution and the statute has treated employees and employers contribution differently after the insertion of Section 36(1)(va) in the statute. Thus, the crux of the judgment in Checkmate (supra) is that employees’ contribution stands on a different footing than employer

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1741/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1741/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 204-206, Tolstoy House, Cpc, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact3770D Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, CIT-DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Prashanti Land Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1933/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 1Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 274Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Abnormal increase in cash deposits added Under section 68 of the Act Rs. 7,34,00,000/- 2. Disallowance of interest expenditure Under section 36(1)(iii) Rs.1,09,76,129/- 3. Unsecured loans added under section 68 of the Act Rs.47,61,18,493/- 4. Interest disallowed Rs.11

DCIT Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Bptp Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 955/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 955/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-32, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43B

Interest paid on money borrowed was claimed through computation of income as period cost, being revenue in nature and as per provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 43-B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. At page no.2 of Assessment Order, the AO has furnished details ... placed at Page no.2 of Paper Book. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of interest paid as per provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The AO requisitioned the assessee to explain vide notice dated 25.10.2018 as to why interest paid

Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2465/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read 2 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that ... those amounts could not have been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order

Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 157/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

For Appellant: Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Supreme Court has also admittedly held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Incred Management and Technology Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Income Tax Dept., Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalincred Management & Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 1203, 12Th Floor, B-Wing, The Capital, Plot No. C-70, G-Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aagcb6271M ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A)/Nfac Income Tax Department, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Dalmia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 250

audit report containing schedule 20(b) i.e. details of contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va). As per this schedule 20(b), In view of this, we hereby confirm the findings in the order of Ld. CIT (A) and ground

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

books of accounts and not being deposited within the due dates specified under the relevant acts as given in Explanation-1 to section 36(1)(va)deduction u/s.36(1)(va) was not claimed thus on its subsequent accounting in the books of account including deposit with additional liability of interest ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1232/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

books of accounts and not being deposited within the due dates specified under the relevant acts as given in Explanation-1 to section 36(1)(va)deduction u/s.36(1)(va) was not claimed thus on its subsequent accounting in the books of account including deposit with additional liability of interest ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed

Chw Forge Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Spl Range 2(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediachw Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Near Hapur Road Flyover, Special Range 2(4) Maliwara, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201 001 Pan No. Aaacc 6049 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

grounds of appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the disallowance of employees contribution to provident fund under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with Section 43B of the Act to the extent of Rs.12,84,043/-. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel made ... case was selected under scrutiny and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act where no such addition/disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 143 of the Act were made. The intimation framed under Section 143(1) of the Act thus merges with the assessment

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3316/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv
Section 14A

under:- “16. In ground no. 3, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.1,41,63,945 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 17. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had availed loan

Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 358/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.358/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, 208, Gidc Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 14/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

well settled” “After 1 April 1989, for allowing deduction for the amount of any bad debt or part thereof under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable, it is enough if bad debt

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

revenue by observing 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), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

revenue by observing 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

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

revenue by observing 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

Raj Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2018 sustained the disallowance to the extent of Rs.24,96,935/- made by the AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT the extent of Rs 24,96,935/- made by AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively ... clearly indicates that the assessee was on a continuous lookout for a suitable office premise. It is also noted that nowhere in the section 36(1)(iii) of the Act it is specified that the loan obtained by the assessee has to be invested on the date of borrowing

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1 ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts