← 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)

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd, [2009] 178 taxman 135 Bombay has observed as under: Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessee- company was engaged in business of generation of power - It had made ... concern out of interest-free funds Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's contention and directed Assessing Officer to allow entire amount of interest under section 36(1)(iii) Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeals) as also Tribunal had recorded a clear finding

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

form part of the loan. Even if an adjustment with respect to the notional interest is made, then a corresponding deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act should also be provided in respect of the notional interest forming part of the loan, which would be written

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

provisions. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with ... issue and the employees contribution to the PF and ESI not deposited by the 3 assessee within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal stating that inasmuch as the assessee credited the amounts

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

another interesting feature involved to resolve this controversy is that the revenue otherwise cannot allow the claim of payment under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because as per this section, the deduction is provided in respect of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed ... payment did not fall within the category of "income from other sources" as also cannot be allowed as payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required to be deducted

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

Ground No. 2 24. Ground No. 2 is directed against the order of CIT(A) allowing deduction of interest expenditure of INR under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA. No. 2270/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 25. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee ... were utilized for the construction of the building. The Interest expenses incurred during the year, were revenue in nature and were allowable under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act having been incurred wholly or exclusive for the purpose of the business of the Assessee. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed

I-Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

made by the Learned AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. Page 2 of 5 8. The Learned CIT (A) and the Learned AO have erred in making the addition ... PF/ESI as per the respective Act, to which the CPC (Central Processing Center), while processing the income of the assessee, disallowed as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. I further noted that on the statement of facts submitted by the assessee, he has referred

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

adding back the amount in the computation of income as the same is not eligible for write off as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, during appellate proceedings it has tried to mislead by claiming that the amount had actually been written ... that law is no more a good law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of the said Explanation in section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1-4-1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the profit and loss account would

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

adding back the amount in the computation of income as the same is not eligible for write off as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, during appellate proceedings it has tried to mislead by claiming that the amount had actually been written ... that law is no more a good law. According to the learned counsel, in view of the insertion of the said Explanation in section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 1-4-1989, a mere debit of the impugned amount of bad debt to the profit and loss account would

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

strapping, seals and paper products and trade in tools. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from ... issue and the employees contribution to the PF and ESI not deposited by the assessee within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal stating that inasmuch as the assessee credited the amounts

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are prospective in nature and not applicable for the year under consideration. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts ... 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

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

making adjustments towards disallowing the delayed payment of PF and ESI amounting to ₹.3,30,91,373/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf ... Services P. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has considered the issue of disallowance of belated remittances of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, and after considering relevant provisions and also by relying upon various judicial precedents held that

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5710/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Office No. Bw-3010 Circle 5(3), Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics5514N Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Sankit Chordia, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Samuel Pitta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 92Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure of Rs. 5,79,000/- by applying proviso to section 36(1)() of the Income Tax Act, 1961. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P. Ltd.; A.Y. 2010-11 1.2 He erred in holding that interest bearing funds were ... assets. It is the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any interest expenditure which is covered by the Provision of Section 36(1) S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P. Ltd.; A.Y. 2010-11 (iii) of the Act. We find that assessee has interest free funds available which were more

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

those firms 1.e. Sadguru Properties, Sadguru Krisha & Developers, Eco Fitness, Sadguru Associates. 7.2 "The expression "for the purpose of business" occurs in Section 36(1)(iii) and also in Section '37(1). A similar expression with different wording also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads ... while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii). Thus, meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under

Sahana Builders Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 52, Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)-52, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit-4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54B, Junction Of S.V. Road & Lallubhai Park, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Amit Bothra & Ms. Manish Chandak, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. Dr M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Bothra &For Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

Revenue. 17. In the result appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed. 18. Ground No.1 raised by assessee pertains to confirming disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 4,68,945/-. This issue has already been M/s Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. discussed in detail in Revenue ... difference amount (Rs. 1,62,500 - 1,20,000) of Rs. 42,500/- only can be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Ground of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed and directed to the AO to disallow amount of interest under section 36(1

M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Assessee had set up the claim for deduction under Section 37(1) for business loss and not under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act for bad debts. Therefore, the aforesaid judicial precedents relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative were not applicable to the facts of the present case

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

held that claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible Page 5 of 13 under section 36(1)(v0 of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited