“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)

Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Alwar /DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Alwar/CPC Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 166/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

allowed as the ruling of decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT and amendments to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 was not available/applicable at the time of process. 3. That on the facts ... deleted. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendments made to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Uma Polymers Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaluma Polymers Limited 215, Raheja Plaza, Off Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400053 Pan: Aaacu0748E ...... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Processing Centre Bangalore, Karnataka-560 500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254Section 254(2)Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

I G International Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 146/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G. International P Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 145/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 144/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 143/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 142/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Mum/2023 I.G.International Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, CC-1(3) IN THE

New Rampgreen Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre NFAC., Delhi

In the result Ground No. 4 is also partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnew Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited F-12, Shilpin Centre, Gd Ambedkar Marg, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aadcv9341F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, 7 (2) (4) Room No.807, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil KishanlalSoiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 38Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Babuda M. Kadam, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 3194/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalbabuda M. Kadam C-1, Narmada Mahadev, Cabin Cross Road Bhayander East, Thane- 401 105 Pan: Abdpk7421P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A)/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Ankita LuniaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 24Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1928/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case and in law, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,07,01,091 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for the delay in crediting the employees' contribution received to Provident Fund. D) On the facts and the circumstances ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 (which provided for the disallowance of delayed deposit of the employees' contribution received to Provident Fund) was applicable from

Atc Precision Components Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1804/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatc Precision Components Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Cpc B-1/5,Janak Puri Bangalore Delhi-110 058 Pan No. Aafca 2867 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023

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

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.1,79,407/- on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution under the relevant act without considering the stated judgments where ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.1,79,407/- although it was submitted that, second proviso to section 43B of the Act which ATC Precision Components Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

principal or conversion to equity on trigger; c. Discretionary pay-out with existence of full coupon discretion. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(iii), deduction is allowed in respect of the amount of interest in respect of capital borrowed for the business and profession. However, reference ... concept of borrowing. If there is no obligation to refund the capital provided, interest on such capital is not deductible under section 36(1)(iii). Therefore, in case of perpetual bonds, where the lender does not have authority to claim refund of the amount given, the said amount cannot

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

contributions towards ESI & EPF by the assessee-employer, could have summarily been held by the A.O, as the assessee’s income under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act while processing his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act,.? 8. As is discernable from ... audit report only furnished details of the employees shares of contribution as referred to in Section 36(1)(va), i.e the respective amounts a/w. dates of deposit. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O merely on the basis of the aforesaid details provided by the auditor could

Anibrain Digital Technologies Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Income Tax Dep., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

ITA 198/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleanibrain Digital Technologies V. Dcit Private Limited Centralized Processing Centre B1, 4Th Floor, Cerebrum It Park Income-Tax Department Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014 Bangalore- Pan: Aafca6342K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Praveen Jain Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

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 ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Anang Pal Jawla, Haryana vs. Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Anang Pal Jawla, Vs Ao, Advocate Vijay Kumar Gupta, Circle-1, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Aqapj1168Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.579/Del/2022 For Ay 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040963669(1) Dated 17.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 07.07.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Since The Issue Is Already A Covered Issue, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Based On Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Dhruv Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 86/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao Who Ignored The Same.

For Appellant: Shri B.A. Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

supra) is reproduced 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

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal also. It is also clear that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the taxpayer is entitled to deduction ... especially when such sum is admittedly, a sum received by the taxpayer/ employer from his employee. Therefore, for considering such question, application of Section 36(1)(va) red with Section 2(24)(x) alone in the proper course and other interpretation would only defect the object and scope of both

Husk Power Systems Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5086/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Husk Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 145A, Gf, N Block, Circle-11(2), Greater Kailash, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacch1699H

For Appellant: Shri Anand Suman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

treating it as irrecoverable by duly crediting to the account of concerned parties. Hence the assessee had duly complied with the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act and accordingly would be entitled for deduction in the sum of Rs 13,51,601/- thereon

All Grow Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1072/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usall Grow Finance & Vs. Dcit Investment Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10(1) Shop No.118, Tikona Park New Delhi New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aaaca 4941 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2023

Section 143(3)

Interest and without any business purposes, interest to extent that advance had been made without carrying any interest is to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii)". 5.5 In the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs CIT Hon'ble Delhi High Court [2011] 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

section 28, then automatically any interest paid by the partner for the purpose of earning the remuneration must also be deducted as per section 36(1) (li). Under this section, in computing the income referred to in section 28, the deduction is provided of the amount of the interest paid