“Section 36(1)”

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

said amounts have been written off in the books of account would not entitle the appellant to claim of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, no evidence was brought on record to show the aforesaid amounts were not recoverable. 57. Having considered the rival submission ... representing purchase returns by claiming deduction for the correct amount of purchase cost pertaining to goods received and accepted. Therefore, deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act cannot be allowed. In our view, the amount of INR 2,60,035/- is in the nature of advance for purchases

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

against secured loans for its windmill projects. The Kukreja Development Corporation ITA No.5766/Mum./2017 learned CIT observed that the applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) along with explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act does not appear to have been looked into by the Assessing Officer ... assessment order, inter-alia, on the issue of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO was directed to examine the applicability of section 36(1)(iii) along with explanation 8 to section 43(1) and decide the issue as per the provisions of the Act. 5. Pursuant

Tarun Kumar Ratan Singh Rathi, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), It Dept, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletarun Kumar Ratan Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Singh Rathi 503, Badrinath Tower, Sanjeev Enclave, Seven Bunglow, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpr3169F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Rajni Rani Roy.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

that it is a debatable issue. This itself would indicate that whether the claim of a provision for bad debts is deductible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

interest was at Rs.82,21,73,747/- and Rs.1,98,73,6967- totalling to Rs.83,70,43,071/- which was claimed under section 36(1)(iii) as allowable expenditure being the case that interest expenditure was incurred on loan availed from the L/C by the assessee company

Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdraeger Safety India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeals 9Th Floor, Commerz Ii National Faceless International Business Assessment Centre Park, Oberoi Garden Delhi City, Off Western Express Highway Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecd0537A Respondent .. Appellant

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 ITA No.1533/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 5 Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd. VS.CIT(A) NFAC distinction between the employers

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Raymond Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. -2(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and decided the issue in its favour. 27. Further, he brought to our notice section 36(1)(viii) to submit that amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

M/S. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and decided the issue in its favour. 27. Further, he brought to our notice section 36(1)(viii) to submit that amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee