← 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)

ACIT 1(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)

accordingly, the assessment order was set aside on 22.03.2013 with a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow the correct deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act after examining the issues raised by him thoroughly and taking into consideration the facts that interest received by the assessee under

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on hedge swaps was an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act 12. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the aviation fuel facility of the Assessee was completed ... hence interest on swap paid after the asset was put to use was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the tax auditor of the Assessee had certified that there

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Devi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless centre erred in disallowing P.F. section 36(1)(va) and and ESIC payments aggregating to Rs. 1,95,721 on the ground that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section ... been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly 3 ITA No.1715 & 1716/Mum.2021 M/s. Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., when there are judgments ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Triton Maritime Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -5(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

orders of the lower authorities. This Tribunal has been consistently holding that the amendment 4 M/s. Triton Maritime Pvt. Ltd., brought in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is applicable only from A.Y.2021-22 and onwards and cannot be applicable for earlier year. In view

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the ITA No. 316/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 3 M/s Shankar Packagings Limited Vs. NFAC

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Bell Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sanketh Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that 2 M/s.Bell Teleservices India Private Limited. 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 at the time ... 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

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments(India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

from capital to revenue. The AO held that there is no provision under income tax act to claim the advances written off. Under Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2), only bad debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify ... deductible expenditure in computing income from business. The claim was examined by the Revenue authorities in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,50,867/- under section 36 (1)(va) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (Act) on payments made to employee's provident fund before the due date of filing of return ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in making a disallowance of Rs.2,50,867/- under section 36 (1)(va) Act without appreciating that the same is allowable as per the ratio of the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court which are binding

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

account of amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowable under section 36(1)(va) of the act for Contributions received from Employees for ESIC and Provident fund.” 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that payment of employee’s contribution ... income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

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