“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)

Seven S Banking Management Consultancy Services (P) Ltd, Mumbai-400069 vs. Circle-11(2)(1), Mumbai-400020

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

ITA 1167/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1167/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Circle-11(2)(1), Seven S Banking Management Mumbai Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. बिधम/ Office No. 104, Eco Heights, Shree Nityanand Society, Vs. Swami Nityanand Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecs7701B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.03.2022, 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: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

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 ... contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1167/Mum/2022 Seven S Banking Management Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. 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

M/S Aashis Products, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru, Banguluru

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Centralized M/S. Aashis Products बिधम/ Processing Centre, Plot No. 23, Midc, Road No. 9, Vs. Bengaluru-560500 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafa1695H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Ground Taken Before Us Is That, Ld. First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding Addition U/S 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 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. 1131/Mum/2022 M/s. Aashis Products Explanation 1

Qualiance International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 2357/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Centralized Processing Qualiance International Pvt. Centre, Ltd. बिधम/ Bengaluru-560500 B-406, Knox Plaza, Mind Space, Vs. Next To Tangent Showroom, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacq1420B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 29.10.2021, 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: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

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 ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2021 Qualiance International Pvt. Ltd. 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

M/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2102/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Cir-3(2)(1), M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Maharshi Karve Road, 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Vs. Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacl0824C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mehra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 10.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, LdFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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. 6. 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 Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

Dy.CIT 13(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sahakar Global Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is the deletion of addition made under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) to the tune of R.3,57,95,555/- being employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC deposited after the due date ... return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act at CPC, Bangalore. The impugned amount was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act on the pretext that the employees contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC was paid beyond the due dates

M/S. Bhoomi Construction Projects, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Ward-28(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

under: - “7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the AO has made disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act alleging that interest free loans and advances were given to 8 parties. However, in course of appellate proceedings, learned Commissioner ... advances were provided out of interest free funds available with the assessee, no disallowance out of interest expenditure can be made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,33,722/-. Grounds are allowed.” 6. Therefore, according to her, the disallowance

Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1595/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleabhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited V. Pr.Cit -1 Ground Floor, K.K. Tower 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 Abhudaya Bank Lane Aayakar Bhavan Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg M.K. Road Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujle Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujleFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

section (4) in section 80P the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80P from A.Y. 2007-08. The deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is available in respect of bad debts written off subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified under section 36(2). Section 36(1 ... amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such banks. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1)(viia) are distinct and independent. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2007-08 to cooperative bank also

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

scheduled banks on payment basis in its return of income as followed by it every year consistently and in accordancewith the provisions of section 36(1) (ili) of the ITA which was also upheld by ITAT and CIT(A) in appellant's own case for earlier years. Copy of ITAT ... appeal to the High Court on this ground in the earlier years. Further, we draw your honors kind attention to the provisions of section 36(1) (ill) of ITA which is read as under "36/1) The deduction provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect

Mega Custodial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 633/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mega Custodial Services Limited V. Dcit – Circle-10(2)(2) 301, Level-3, Ceejay House Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate, F-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaacm3508J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Navneet Chaudhary Department By : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Navneet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed detailed submissions for the purpose of clarity it is reproduced below: - 5 M/s. Mega Custodial Services Limited "Disallowance under section 36(1)(ii) of Rs 2.55.82.026/ 1. We reiterate what is mentioned in our Appeal. 2. It is submitted before your goodself that the learned assessing

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

common procurement resulting in lower cost of manufacturing, achieving better cost efficiency, etc. ii. The Appellant had fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in section 36(1)(iii) and as laid down in judicial pronouncements. As per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) as was applicable to the year under appeal ... same. 6.10. We find that when this point was put to the ld DR, he argued that in any case, the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act would come into operation which reads as under:- Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital

Ashish Vaid, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2140/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant. The CIT(A) by mistake disposed the ground involving disallowance under Ashish Vaid; A.Y. 17–18 section 36(1)(va), despite the fact that the Appellant has not raised the said ground. The ground raised by Appellant, which has not been disposed ... relevant ESI & PF Act but before the due date of filing of return of income. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it clear that the 'due date' means the date by which the assessee is required

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

correct in law in deleting the disallowance of interest of ₹2,03,17,621/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest free loans and advances to its subsidiaries on account of sufficient availability of interest free funds in view of the decision