← 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)

Nimar Motors P Ltd, Khargone vs. DCIT/CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)-amounts

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above discussions, the employee’s contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing ... 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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 757/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

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

Rs.49,10,505/- to the returned income on account of alleged delay in deposit of employee share of Provident Fund & ESI under section 36(1)(v) as it is not within the purview of the section 143(1) of the Act. It is a debatable issue which cannot be covered ... 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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 756/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

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

Rs.49,10,505/- to the returned income on account of alleged delay in deposit of employee share of Provident Fund & ESI under section 36(1)(v) as it is not within the purview of the section 143(1) of the Act. It is a debatable issue which cannot be covered ... 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

Tempo Automobiles (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1836/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

Rs.2,56,243/- under section 40A(7) of the Act in respect of provision for gratuity and disallowance of Rs.1,51,909/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF/ESI. On going through the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) we observed that ... 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

Jagannath Corporation Projects Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 167/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Jagannath Jagannath Corporation Corporation Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Projects Projects Pvt Pvt Ltd., Ltd., Plot Plot No.397, No.397, Sarangi Sarangi Bhawan Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /02/2023

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, SR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2020-2021 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

Kapil Kumar Nehra, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2677/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedikapil Kumar Nehra Vs. Ito 435/16, Nawal Cottage Ward – 2(2) Civil Line Near Pushpanjali Gurgaon Hospital, Gurgaon – 122 001

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

U V Buildcon (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 696/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Officer. 9 I.T.A. No. 696/Del/2020 9. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at 4% of Rs.5,00,00,000/- the guarantee provided by the assessee to its sister concern on behalf

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh, Bhopal vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 139/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in to the Government account under Section 36(1)(va). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment / intimation the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC. The CIT(A) / NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee

New Vision Softeocom & Consultabcy P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya & Ajay Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

respect of ESIC, and the total disallowance was ₹ 5,59,108/-. In passing the order, the AO did not allow the claim under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of ₹ 5,23,920/- being the employee’s contribution under EPF and ₹ 35,188/- on account of ESIC which ... Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. NalinaDyave Gowda[2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, financial year

Kwality Motel Shiraz, Bhopal vs. Asst Director of Income Tax CPC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Fadnis, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,64,014/- on account of employees' contribution of Provident Fund deposited late by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi has erred in not following the binding ... provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies." (xii) Hence, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Act, and the recent amendment after passing of the Finance Act 2021, has only clarified the issue

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

above discussions and also keeping in view of the clarificatory amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 vide (a) Explanation 2 in section 36(1 )(va) (b) Explanation 5 in section 43B Keeping in view of the above clarificatory explanations and following the ratio of the above decisions ... audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return

Venus Footarts Limited, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 7,33,96,750/- by making additions of Rs. 73,32,390/- under section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the assessee deposited employee’s contribution of Provident Fund beyond the due date specified under PF Act although the same

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

Bank vs. DCIT (130 tilonann.com 239) held that where Assessing Officer issued impugned notice under section 154 on ground that deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) was to be restricted to provisions of doubtful debt made by assessee in financials, since nature of mistake proposed to be rectified ... stated clearly P a g e 8 | 11 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(viia). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section

Anjani Kumar Dwivedi, Durg vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 98/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anjani Kumar Dwivedi Qtr. No. Lc 6/D, Street No.18, Camp-1, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 023 Pan: Aigpd3229G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Act. The CPC while processing the return of income triggered the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.31,98,463/- towards delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contributions towards Provident fund ... share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts would by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act constitute income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO(CPC) in disallowing the Employee contribution of Rs. 4,62,183/-, under Section 36(1)(va), w.r.t. PF/ESI, when the same was deposited by the assessee firm, before the due date of filing the return of income. The Action ... total income of Rs.69,87,730/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 12.11.2019 making adjustment of Rs.4,62,183/- under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the said adjustment made by the CPC, the assessee has filed this appeal before

Crest Ultrasonics India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ADIT Ward-6(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2038/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

rendered but the sum was otherwise payable to him as profit and dividend. Thus, it was shown as an item which falls under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. 9. Based on the aforesaid report of the auditor, CPC, while processing the return, added the amount to the income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Measage Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports (P) Limited, Ferozepur Cantt

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

ITA 1/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

Vegetarian Exports P. Ltd. deletion of the disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 1,98,63,037/- in contravention into the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the record of the appellant- company filed return ... issue and relevant part of which is reproduced below: “Subject: Admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under section 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 -reg. Proposals have been received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding filing of appeals/pursuing

Alwar General Finance Co. (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

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

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

Beltek Canadian Waters Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

rejecting the appeal of the appellant and confirming the addition of Rs. 2 Beltek Canadian Waters Ltd 22,69,198 made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, ignoring the fact that there is no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the advances made by the appellant ... exempt income during the year. Hence, in the absence of any exempt income, we hold that no disallowance is called for. Disallowance u/s section 36(1)(iii): 4. The assessee granted loan to M/s Accomplish Electronics Pvt. Ltd., a wholly own subsidiary of an amount of Rs. 1.68 crores