← 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 Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

effort made to IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 46 of 53 recover the same and that it is not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The said disallowance came to be upheld by the CIT(A). 68. The ld AR submitted that giving advance

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

effort made to IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 46 of 53 recover the same and that it is not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The said disallowance came to be upheld by the CIT(A). 68. The ld AR submitted that giving advance

M/S. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,60,150, inter-alia, after making an addition of Rs. 2,85,269, under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on the basis that the conditions laid down in section 36(2) of the Act are not satisfied. 6. Meanwhile ... asked to justify whether the conditions specified under section 36(2) are fulfilled in assessee’s case, in order to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, not agreeing with the submissions of the assessee, the AO vide order passed under section

ACIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 490/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

ground No. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 11,13,552, made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd. ITA No.490/Mum./2022 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee ... interest and lending the money at a lower rate of interest and justification for claiming the differential amount as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In absence of any justification, the Assessing Officer (‘AO‟) vide order dated 30/12/2016, passed under section

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

President, pursuant to reference by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, to decide the following question: ―Whether deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r. 6ABA of the Income Tax Act 1962 is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances including opening balances upon ... case, which resulted in constitution of this Special Bench is: The assessee is a scheduled bank and has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision made for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee, while claiming aforesaid deduction under section The State Bank

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

President, pursuant to reference by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, to decide the following question: ―Whether deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r. 6ABA of the Income Tax Act 1962 is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances including opening balances upon ... case, which resulted in constitution of this Special Bench is: The assessee is a scheduled bank and has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision made for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee, while claiming aforesaid deduction under section The State Bank

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 527/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To Lodha Impression Real Estate Private Limited,) 412, Floor -4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road,Horniman Circle. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl-1490-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj SethFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

crores as claimed in the computation of income on ground of interest expenses retained in inventory is deductible under provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was further informed that the said amount of interest paid was in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business

Mresult Services Private Limited, Bngalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 953/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

whereby the employees Page 2 of 3 contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same

2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1357/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm 2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit, Cpc 62, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 001 Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai-400 011

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.2(24)(x) r/w section 36(1)(va) of the Act, owing to the delay in the said payments before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. 3 2M Ateliers & Design

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

capitalised till the asset is put to use. This is supported by Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Any cost incurred beyond that period should be charged off as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, `Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No.7287/Mum./2018 he argued

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Mr. Abdul Hassn Rizvi, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 788/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 756/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

Court in revenue’s favor as under: - 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what ... 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various

Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 739/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

estoppel against law. If the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 dated 15/12/2017 suffers from the vice of incorrect interpretation of Section 36(1)(viia), the Tribunal has the power to direct the lower authorities to apply the correct interpretation of a provision of law. 5. The interpretation of Section ... deduction u/s.36(l)(viia) cannot exceed the provision made in the books of account is incorrect. There is no such explicit restriction in Section 36(1)(viia). 6. The assessing officer erred in treating OTS-Interest Waiver as bad debt and consequently erred in denying the claim of Rs.90

M/S. India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 by order dated 08.12.2021 after considering the amendment brought in the statute by finance Act,2021 of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B has held that provision is prospective and not retrospective and will be applicable from the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent

Pandurang Rama Poojari, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pandurang Rama Poojari National Faceless Appeal Nasreen Mazil, Gujarati Centre Mandal Road, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Delhi, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai- 400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp5890L Assessee By : Shri. Jigar Sangani Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan. (Sr Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Jigar SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan. (SR AR)
Section 143Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Honorable CIT(A) erred in not allowing the employer's contribution od Rs 3,57,500 the basis of amendment to section 36(1)(VA) and explanation to section 43(B)(b) presuming the same to be retrospective though it was clearly stated in the Act it is effective from ... section 2(24)(x) unless deposited with concerned authorities on or before the due date as defined in Explanation (now Explanation 1) below section 36(1)(va) i.e. due dates under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc. iv. The non-obstante clause in section

Veekay Farms, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax 25(1) Mumbai Old Dy.Comm of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit 25(1) Old Dy.Cit Veekay Farms, 17(1) Room No. Kb 117, F/99, Opposite Marriot, Kautilya Bhavan, North Bombay Co-Op Society, Vs. Juhu, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 049 Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri. R N Vasani, B T ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 133(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

learned Veekay Farms; A.Y. 13-14 Assessing Officer disallowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to ₹9,55,748/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 06. Assessee has debited various expenditure in the profit and loss account amounting to ₹6,92,596/-, such as telephone

ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Santhil Kumaran
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1620/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The CIT(A) had deleted ... that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Year: 2017-18 & 2019-20 2. The solitary issue raised in both the appeals pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). In the appeal filed ... that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment