← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1894/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)

No.3048/Mum./2019 vide order dated 5 April 2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, by observing as under: “4.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after noticing the ratio of decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the business purposes constitutes an allowable deduction. The said clause (iii) of section 36(1) of the Act supports the assessee's claim in the present case. This view is upheld in the case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd(Successor to M/S Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1892/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

No.3048/Mum./2019 vide order dated 5 April 2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, by observing as under: “4.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after noticing the ratio of decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the business purposes constitutes an allowable deduction. The said clause (iii) of section 36(1) of the Act supports the assessee's claim in the present case. This view is upheld in the case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mmr Social Housing Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As M/S Lodha Buildcon Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1891/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 143(3)

No.3048/Mum./2019 vide order dated 5 April 2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, by observing as under: “4.2 The Ld. CIT(A), after noticing the ratio of decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court ... amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the business purposes constitutes an allowable deduction. The said clause (iii) of section 36(1) of the Act supports the assessee's claim in the present case. This view is upheld in the case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 ... Employee's Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the "due date" as per the explanation below section 36((1)(va) of the IT Act,1961, the same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court. 5. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that these legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, are prospective in application w.e.f. April 1, 2021. 6. Such other grounds as may be urged ... date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 191/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92C

denied the deduction. The DRP upheld the order of the AO on the reasoning that under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, deduction is allowed only for amounts borrowed for business purposes and since CCD’s are in the nature of Equity, no deduction is permissible for return paid ... management of the company and lastly, interest, unlike dividends, is generally allowed as deduction from the taxable profits of the company. Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`IT Act') provides for deduction of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed by a tax payer

Amit Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5807/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

resulting in loss under the head „income from other sources‟ does not fit into the conditions of section 57(iii) or under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and agreed for disallowance of the aforesaid sum. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 08/12/2016, passed under section ... resulting in loss under the head income from other sources does not fit into the conditions of section 57(iii) or section 36(1)(iii) and agreed for disallowance of Rs. 5,37,438, while computing income from other sources. It is the plea of the assessee that the assessee

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

assessment year 199899. Since the methodology followed by the assessee to write off was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it's claim was not allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner ... loss account and order entry is by way of reduction of such sum from the total debtors account. Thus, the provision of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is duly complied with and therefore the appellate Commissioner was justified in allowing the claim of bad debt. Aggrieved

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), Delhi, 401, Della Tower, 795 Parsi Vs. Colony, Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aadcd 2549 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. the return of income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do no Act, 1961. Section 36(1 ... income an income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. d hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1707/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), Delhi, 401, Della Tower, 795 Parsi Vs. Colony, Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aadcd 2549 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. the return of income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do no Act, 1961. Section 36(1 ... income an income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. d hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section

Span Intermediates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed subject to submission of certified documents mentioned above

ITA 1917/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalspan Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Mustafa Building, Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta Road, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcs6103Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(iv)Section 438Section 43B

made by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") holding the same to be in excess of the limits prescribed under section 36(1)(iv) of the IT Act read with Rule 87 of the IT Rules. He ought not to have confirmed the disallowance 2. Ground No. 2: Without prejudice ... recognised provident fund against the salaries and wages payments of Rs. 71,58,807/- claimed during the year. While as per the section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rules 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, any contribution above 27% of the total salary

DCIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nisa Induatrial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1475/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Nisa Industrial Dcit-2(3)(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ 509, Magnum Tower, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Cross Road No. 2, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 058 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1283H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: None
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... reported to be „due date‟ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now 15 I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 M/s Nisa Industrial Services

ACIT 1 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dosti Realty Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7374/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shr Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7374/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Dosti Realty Ltd. (Formally Known As Friends Income Tax-1(1)(1), Development Corporation 579,Ayankar Bhavan, M.K बिधम/ (Imperia) Pvt. Ltd. Road, Mumbai-400020, 276,1St Floor, Lawrence & Vs. Mayo House, Mumbai - 400001, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aabcf5801A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.R. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Dr.K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-2, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2014-2015. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Rastogi, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr.K.Shivaram & Rahul
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

fact that the interest was expended ultimately for acquiring a qualifying asset and therefore should have been capitalized as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2020- 21 and therefore, deduction was allowable under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable for the relevant assessment year. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 1 April, 2021 and accordingly, applicable

M/S. Conwood Construction & Developers Pvt.Ltdconstruction, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir-6, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1506/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2003-04
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

above set of facts, it has to be taken that that the Assessing Officer has made impugned disallowance in both the years under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, since according to the Assessing Officer the assessee has given interest free advances to its sister concerns out of interest ... concerns is less than the amount of aggregate of own funds and interest free loans taken by the assessee, then no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is called for. However, we notice that the factual aspects relating to quantum of own funds and interest free funds

Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-35, Mumbai

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

ITA 5058/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Parida/Ms. KiranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

deduction. Following the binding precedent (supra), we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 as the amendment will be effective from

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-29

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Act towards belated remittance of Employees share of Employees' State Insurance(ESI), Provident Fund(PF) and other welfare funds under section 36(1)(va), from the Form 3CD filed along with ITR, though clause no. 20.b of such Form 3CD itself reports that such payment ... prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1594/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Seth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80G

jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction Inds Ltd 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003. 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case ... year for which it belongs to and the year in which it is incurred. Therefore the claim of assessee is supported by Section 36 (1) (iii) of the act being interest pertaining to stock in trade. The learned assessing officer did not agree with the contention of the assessee

Kya Apparel LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 1732/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekya Apparel Llp Vs. Dcit, Cpc H. No. 434/6, Gala 6 To P.O.Box.1,Electronic 11, Bldg-A-7, Harihar City, Corporation, Dapode Bangalore.560100. Road, Mumbai – 421302 Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk3840Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Harjajani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja Harjajani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.P. Veena.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are prospective in nature. (d) The claim of the employees' contribution to Provident Fund ought to be allowed by following the decision ... reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that