← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur

ITA 1889/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

viia). 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that some of the branches are not rural branches as per the definition of Section 36(1)(viia). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that term “rural branch” is to be determined based only on the population ... Appellant bank. 3.1. The lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the non-rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 3.2. The lower authorities erred in not following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Trichy

ITA 1502/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

viia). 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that some of the branches are not rural branches as per the definition of Section 36(1)(viia). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that term “rural branch” is to be determined based only on the population ... Appellant bank. 3.1. The lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the non-rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 3.2. The lower authorities erred in not following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Disallowance of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- claimed on Toll Road, (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 4.1 Later, the assessee got the dispute of disallowance of interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- under section 36(1 ... Thus, on average there is capital work-in progress of Rs.15,86,72,289/-. 7.2.3 As per the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) r.w. Explanation 8 to subsection 1 of section 43 of the Act, interest attributable to capital work-in progress needs to be capitalized with the costs

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3039/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

rural branches of the appellant bank without adjusting the same against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 2. The learned Assessing Officer be directed to not to apply the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the provisions ... debts written off by non-rural branches may not be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section

Punjab National Bank, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2712/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

rural branches of the appellant bank without adjusting the same against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 2. The learned Assessing Officer be directed to not to apply the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the provisions ... debts written off by non-rural branches may not be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section

Tumlare Software Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT DCIT Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed as above

ITA 2653/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)

Rs.7,75,456/- made under section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), disallowance of Rs.18,59,443/- made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance of interest of Rs.16,58,380/- paid due to Tax Tumlare Software Services P. Ltd. Collection at Source (TCS) default ... same should have not been added back again. On our specific query that the disallowance of PF of Rs.18,59,443/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited

Mahak Industries Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2530/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 144Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Vide 3 grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following two issues: i. Disallowance of interest of Rs.29,49,583/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) [Ground No. 1 and 2] ii. Disallowance of expenses of Rs.3,95,318/- [Ground No. 3] Mahak Industries ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and got part relief. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of Rs.73,29,738/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to Rs.29,49,583/-. The relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) out of disallowance of interest has not been

The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Hanamkonda vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 364/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

instead of the refund of Rs. 1,18,48,010/- that was claimed by the assessee. Apart from that, the AO/CPC disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution to PF/ESI amounting to Rs. 19,15,388/- (paid ... case of Prolific HR Consultants (India) Ltd. vs. ADIT(CPC), Bengaluru, ITA No. 561 of 2023, dated 10.09.2025, had allowed a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act,1961, for a 16-day delay in depositing the Employees’ Provident Fund by the assessee

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

hence, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act would not apply to the instant case. 2. Non-applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 2.1 The learned CIT(A) duly examining the facts of the case rightly held that the provisions of Section 36(1 ... creation of any capital asset nor would result in any enduring benefit to the company and accordingly the application of the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to such cases is not warranted. :-5-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 2.3 The learned CIT(A) after duly

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

hence, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act would not apply to the instant case. 2. Non-applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 2.1 The learned CIT(A) duly examining the facts of the case rightly held that the provisions of Section 36(1 ... creation of any capital asset nor would result in any enduring benefit to the company and accordingly the application of the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to such cases is not warranted. :-5-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 2.3 The learned CIT(A) after duly

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Aircom International India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3096/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. M/S Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), M-12, Balrama House, New Delhi. Karampura Complex, Opp. Milan Cinema, Karam Pura West Delhi Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aadca0915A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate; Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate; & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

observed as follows; “Ground no 3 is against Disallowance of Bad Debts amounting to Rs.1,26,71,902 under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings it was seen that the assessee has claimed trade receivables written off under the head

M/S.Ibs Software Services P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

respect of employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI), (c) disallowance of interest of INR.12,68,911/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The objection raised by the Assessee were disposed off by the DRP vide Order, dated 07/08/2017. DRP rejected the objections ... additions/disallowances: (a) Transfer pricing adjustment of INR.31,09,52,334/- (b) Loss on onerous contracts of INR.5,66,26,572/- (c) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of INR.77,71,759/- (d) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited(Formerly Knowns As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act be deleted. Ground 4: Erred in disallowing an amount of INR 12,742 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CITIA) erred in confirming ... disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the Ld AO, despite the Appellant having already disallowed INR 26,745 in the return of income, in line with the amount reported in Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD 2. That

Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known As Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act be deleted. Ground 4: Erred in disallowing an amount of INR 12,742 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CITIA) erred in confirming ... disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the Ld AO, despite the Appellant having already disallowed INR 26,745 in the return of income, in line with the amount reported in Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD 2. That

The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co Operative Society Limited, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudur

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

ITA 1346/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1346/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018) The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Sullurpeta – 524 121. Vs. Ward-1, Gudur. Nellore District. Pin – 524 101. Pan Aacat7587J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Harsha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA HarshaFor Respondent: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 80P

incorrectly held that the Appellant was ineligible to claim a deduction for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2), due to alleged non-compliance with the relevant conditions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by AO and imputing interest

Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4924/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 143(3), assessing loss at Rs. 73,30,037/- by making additions under various heads, including (i) Rs. 12,18,673/- under section 36(1)(va) for delay in employees' PF/ESIC deposit; (ii) Rs.57,76,633/- on account of disallowance of current year loss; and (iii) computing book profit ... same are discussed here-in- below: (i) The first ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 12,18,673/- under section 36(1) (va) of the Act being delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The appellant contended that

Crown Gaskets Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3450/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Crown Gaskets Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-6(1) Delhi B-488, Meera Bagh Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Pan No. Aafcc2007D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

same and FURNISH A COMPLETE REPORT where he has mentioned that the amount of Rs.35,75,905/- falls within the purview of Section 36(1)(va0. The appellant now claim that the amount related to employer’s contribution is included in that. But no evidence has been furnished

Bansal Pathways Damoh Katni P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhoopal

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

Since, the assessee had diverted its borrowed fund to its prompter company without charging any interest & Section 36(1)(iii) allows the deduction of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business but herein this case, the money given to promoter company ... business purposes. Therefore, proportionate interest relating to the said amount out of the total interest paid to the bank is being disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 10. The amount being disallowed is 12.20% of Rs.13,63,07,111/- = Rs.1,66,29,946/-”. 2.2 That

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarthy, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

claimed by assessee for availing professional services and further disallowed a sum of certain amount on account of interest claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(iii) and made additions to income of assessee- He also directed for issuance of notice under section 271(1)(c) - He further levied penalty

Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 24Section 32

submits that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in holding the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital claimed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act only on the assumption of business of trading in onions does not require capital expenditure or term loans. He vehemently argued that the said