← 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)

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 4767/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Membr Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 144CSection 254Section 260ASection 36(1)(ii)

account of exceptionally high profits which are capable of elimination has to be carried out. d. The deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, in respect of the bonuses paid to its shareholder- employees is allowed”. 3. As could be seen from the aforesaid

Smt Pushplata Chandrawat, Indore vs. The DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before ... appellants income on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before

M/S Laurels School and Management Institution P.Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund at Rs.15,00,686/- and ESIC at Rs.1,93,033/- by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire ... addition of Rs.1,93,033 was made on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Roshan Hospital, Dcit/Acit, 7-A-B, Govind Garden, 5(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal-462023 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.04.2023

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

During the scrutiny assessment, the AO made the addition on account of belated payment to ESI and EPF towards employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 3,92,101/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before ... having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va. But in the case of the assessee, the payments made after due date prescribed in respective Acts but before the due date of filing

Aijal Handicrafts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 312/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)(va)

Finance Act 2021 which is to say, the Hon’ble Courts were seized of the matter prior to the insertion of Explanations of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B. The law as it stands today, after the insertion of the explanations, makes it abundantly clear that the provisions

Sadakat Ali, Prop S P Enterprises, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1709/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.1,51,020, being employees contribution to Provide Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), paid beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3 ITA No.1709/Del./2022 5. I have considered submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record ... year, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that employees contribution to PF/ESI was paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed and added

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-07, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 740/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36

write off. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the CBDT Circular No.314 of 2014 and the amendment to section 36(1 )(vii) wherein Explanation- 2 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from A.Y. 2014- 15 which [CIT(A)’s order at page 67] is again ... very reason why the Explanation stood inserted. Prior to the Finance Act, 2001 many assessees used to take the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) by merely debiting the impugned bad debt to the profit and loss account and, therefore, the Parliament stepped in by way of Explanation

Shri Surinder Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT Range-3, Indore

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 774/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

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

case the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.12,44,569/- out of interest paid, by invoking provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act 1961.” Ground No. 1: 4. This ground relates to the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2,33,720/- made ... holding as under: “8. Ground no.4 of appeal is against disallowance of Rs.12,44,569/- out of interest paid by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that appellant has charged interest on “Advance given” at only 4 to 6% while

Shri Surinder Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT- 3, Indore

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 129/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

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

case the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.12,44,569/- out of interest paid, by invoking provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act 1961.” Ground No. 1: 4. This ground relates to the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2,33,720/- made ... holding as under: “8. Ground no.4 of appeal is against disallowance of Rs.12,44,569/- out of interest paid by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that appellant has charged interest on “Advance given” at only 4 to 6% while

The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. ITO, Circle-1, Tirur

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

ITA 577/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

For Appellant: Shri Hameed Hussain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability of the employer and, hence, the employer's and employee's contribution cannot be treated differently insofar as the deductions permissible under Section 36 (1) (va) 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, thus, reliance placed ... payments on time. This was not any lapse from part of the assessee warranting to the addition by invoicing the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24(x). 7. This issue was raised in prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings have been attached herewith

M/S. Ecoplast Ltd., Valsad vs. Asst. Cmmissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Renge, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/SRT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.545/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Ecoplast Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, S No.309, National Highway No.8, Valsad. Water Works Cross Road, Abrama, Valsad – 396002. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace5030H

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

need to borrow the loan from banks on long term and short term finance. Therefore, Assessing Officer held that the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act is clearly attracted in the case of assessee. Accordingly, a proportionate disallowance which worked out to Rs.47,82,612/- being

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1431/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Ltd., 301-302, Tower 4A, Gurugram S-Block Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City Phase-Iii, Pan No. Aacct 6715 A Gurugram – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Uppal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Who Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2020 For A.Y. 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,82,86,370 /-. In The Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bangalore Vide Identification No. Cpc/1920/A6/2014289684 Dated 18.03.2021, The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 66,49,98,020/- Inter Alia By Disallowing Rs.4,67,11,644/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees Contribution Of Pf/Esi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

return u/s 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not law as per section 2(24)(x) r.w explanation 2 of section 36(1)(v).” 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted though ACIT vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 3 Revenue has raised two grounds ... taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which

Transnational Drilling & Minning Associates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1834/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ustransnational Drilling & Vs. Dcit Minning Associates Pvt. Cpc Ltd., Luv-303, Agrasen New Delhi Apartment, , Ip Extension, New Delhi-110 092 Pan No. Aadct 1249 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 311/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 310/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete

Parshwa Printpack Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 248/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete

Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 85/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 85/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. 14-B, F- Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhilai Township, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Aadcb1675Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

paid after the due date specified in the "Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952" therefore, it is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) by ignoring that payment of total contribution of March'2012 of Rs.20,78,458/- was cleared from SBI account ... while reporting on clause 16(b). 2) That CIT(A) erred in holding that amendment made by Finance Act' 2021 in section 36(1)(va) and in section 43B by inserting Explanation-5 are clarificatory in nature and therefore, apply retrospectively and thereby confirming disallowance

Udaipur Sahakari Uphokta Thok Bhandar Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 441/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad441/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Vs The Acit Thok Bhandar Ltd. Circle-2 Ist Floor, Shastri Circle, Uddaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaau 0159 K

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

first instalment of loan for the purpose for which loan was sanctioned, subsequent instalments would not have been sanctioned. 10.2 The proviso to section 36(1)(iii), as applicable in the year under appeal, reads as under:- 5 UDAIPUR SAHAKARI UPBHOKTA THOK BHANDAR LTD VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR ‘’Provided ... date on which asset was first put to use shall not be allowed as deduction.’’ Thus, as per the above proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession, is not allowable

M/S. Asean Box Corporation, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

with the day-to-day working capital requirements of the business and other business purposes. Therefore, the said interest expenditure is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. However, in the return of income the assessee has inadvertently claimed interest of Rs. 85.40 lakhs on unsecured loans under ... immediately preceding year and after carrying out due verification, the Ld. AO allowed the claim of deduction of interest on unsecured loans under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee had submitted before the A.O. that though the interest expenditure of Rs. 85.40 lakhs

The ACIT 4(1), Indore vs. Durgesh Shukla, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being not maintainable due to low tax effect

ITA 410/IND/2022[018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2023

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Durgesh Shukla of the CIT(A) in respect of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 69,381/- made by the AO under Section 36(1)(va) and tax effect of the same is Rs. 22,895/-. Since, this appeal is arising from the processing of CPC Bangalore under Section