“Section 36(1)”

Shri Mahabir Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahabir Dyeing & Printing V. Dcit – 4(3)(1) Mills Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 510/511, Kakad Market, 306 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacm5098H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2. The Assessee has challenged the disallowance of ₹.4,37,188/- being payment of Provident Fund and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 3. The Assessee in the return of income filed on 27.10.2018 had declared total income ... 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, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) which

ACIT Circle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Solitaire Appliances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on borrowed funds. Furth borrowed funds. Further, though the Assessing Officer proposed though the Assessing Officer proposed Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. disallowance

Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 3 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on borrowed funds. Furth borrowed funds. Further, though the Assessing Officer proposed though the Assessing Officer proposed Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. disallowance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.17,46,66,300/ terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on terms ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of the interest charged on borrowed funds. Furth borrowed funds. Further, though the Assessing Officer proposed though the Assessing Officer proposed Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. ITA Nos. 5855 & 5856/Mum/2016 & Ors. disallowance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

suppliers which resulted in excess interest burden on the assessee and thereby disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs.3,19,18,958/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act out of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. The AO accordingly framed the assessment under section

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

erred in excluding the following income on the ground that the same do not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) without appreciating the facts explained by the appellant during the course of appeal hearings: [3] On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

erred in excluding the following income on the ground that the same do not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) without appreciating the facts explained by the appellant during the course of appeal hearings: [3] On the facts and circumstances of the case

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

Dilip & Co. (2018) 9 SCC (1). Ld. AR further claimed that the amendment in 4 I.T.A. No. 502/Mum/2023 Akar Auto Industries Limited section 36(1)(va) of the Act is perspective in nature, therefore judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Checkmate Services ... retrospectively and therefore as no application to the case in hand. 4.3 The Ld. AR further claimed as per explanation 1 inserted in section 36(1)(va), it has been clarified that for the purpose of its claim due date for the purpose of deposit of employee’s contribution

Yad Associates, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.333/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Yad Associates बिधम/ Assessing Officer, Circle- 10, Daulat Mension, 17(3) Vs. Barrack Road, New Marine Maharshi Karve Rd, New Lines-400020. Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafy0039P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Hirawat Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 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 (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.92,627/- By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For Belated Remittance Of Pf/Esic U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sunil Hirawat Drew Our Attention To The Chart (Infra) Which Shows (I) Month Of Salary (Ii) Date On Which Salary Paid (Iii) Employees Contribution To Esic (Iv) Due Date Of Esic Payment (V) Actual Date Of Esic Payment & Delay In Payment In Accordance To The Assessee. Likewise, The Assessee Has Also Given The Chart Of Provident Fund Which Is As Under: -

Year Ended 31st March, 20108 Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) A- ESIC Salary Month Date of which Employees Due Date of Actual date of Delay in Salary paid contribution to ESIC ESIC Payment ESIC

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. India Debt Management Private Limited, Mumbai

holding as under: “The write-off clearly represents a write-off of an amount receivable and accordingly, allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of 18 the Act or at best it could even be considered as a business loss. The issue is covered by the decision ... written off during the relevant previous year, the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction for the same under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We note that the CIT(A) had granted relief to the Assessee by relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal