← 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)

Late Kari Thimmegowda Rajashekhara, L/R by Ms. Megha B.R., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 5. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Suman P Khurana, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2415/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Ramachandran [2011] 10 taxmann.com 109/199 Taxman 122/339 ITR 296 for the principle that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on borrowed funds utilized for the acquisition of shares, when the shares held as stock-in-trade which arise

Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Kodandaram, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth Pai, AR on behalf of Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 5. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Kodandaram, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth Pai, AR on behalf of Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 5. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

struck down. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds: Re: Disallowance of deduction in respect of premium on redemption of debentures under section 36(1 (iii) of the Act 2.1 On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in disallowing deduction claimed ... Appellant in respect of premium on redemption of debentures under section 36(1 iii) of the Act. 2.2 On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the premium paid on redemption of debentures was claimed

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 794/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Page 2 of 11 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. The issue in the appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee is engaged ... assessee takes it to the work in progress, but then in the computation of income, the same is claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). There is, however, no double deduction inasmuch as whenever the WIP is charged to the profit and loss account, there is a corresponding

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 793/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Page 2 of 11 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. The issue in the appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee is engaged ... assessee takes it to the work in progress, but then in the computation of income, the same is claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). There is, however, no double deduction inasmuch as whenever the WIP is charged to the profit and loss account, there is a corresponding

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Page 2 of 11 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. The issue in the appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee is engaged ... assessee takes it to the work in progress, but then in the computation of income, the same is claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). There is, however, no double deduction inasmuch as whenever the WIP is charged to the profit and loss account, there is a corresponding

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue ... 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

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue ... 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

Shri. Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

ought to have held that the addition of Rs.11,23,548/- in respect of employees contribution to EPF beyond due date by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is unsustainable in view of the binding precedents from jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court on the facts and circumstances ... made addition on account of non-payment of employees’ contribution to ESI/PF beyond the due date. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the reason that it was paid beyond due date prescribed in relevant Act. On this count, he made an addition

Mmr Social Housing P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1310/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. ShethFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. A.R. – CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim made by the appellant for deduction of interest of Rs.4,35,36,783, under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was not allowable. MMR Social Housing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1310/Mum./2021 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... binding on the CIT(A).” 3. The only issue arising in present appeal is with regard to disallowance of deduction of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the records are: The assessee

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

Assessing Officer to decide the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D alongwith other issues of deduction under section 36(1) afresh. The Assessing Officer has given effect to the order of this Tribunal by passing the order dated 22/12/2017 and allowed the claim

Hermes Maritime Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4208/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hermes Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. 1001/1002, Great Eastern Summit-B, Plot No. 66, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614 Pan: Aabch4865Q ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-15(2) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajen Damani Respondent By : Sh. Milind S. Chavan Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Sh. Milind S. Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

Officer (AO) noticed that the auditors have disallowed an amount of Rs. 2, 11,000/- on account of bonus paid to staff under section 36(1) (ii) of the Act. In addition to this ld. AO examined the AIR statement. As per AIR statement, assessee/appellant paid fees for technical services ... cannot be simply brushed aside at threshold itself without considering the same on merits. 9. It is pertinent to discuss the provisions of section 36(1) (ii) of the Act applying which disallowance has been made as under: “Section 36(1)(ii) any sum paid to an employee as bonus

M/S Ashish Land & Property Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 9 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Ashish Land & Property V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10Th Floor, 215, Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aagca2673J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

seen that the said transactions were not finalized and advances were made for acquisition of development rights. Thus, as provided in section 36(1)(iii) and proviso thereto, interest on money borrowed for acquiring a capital assets till the date on which the assets was brought to use even ... extension of existing business and is towards the capital assets. 6 M/s. Ashish Land & Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., Relying on the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is erroneous and is bad in law. 4.6) On the basis of the facts and legal decisions, the expenditure, although for the purpose

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

regular and consistent activity of money lending over a period of time. In this background any claim for bad debt is allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However claim for bad debt written off amounting to Rs.4,03,17,086/- due from Pie Education Ltd has been ... income of the assessee….’’ Page 10 of 21 II) Money lent in the ordinary course of business, claim of bad debt allowable under section 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2)(i), alternatively under section 37(1): (3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills

M/S. Elite India Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sudhindranath, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return of income u/s 139(1) 3 M/s.Elite India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 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 ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

purpose of earning dividend income; consequently, such investments fall beyond the realm of section 14A. Exclusion of interest disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) 4.11. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and facts by considering interest on borrowed funds ... while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, when the subject interest is already a matter of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) and the interest disallowed in relation to Project Spirit report. Investments arising on restructuring included 4.12. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 606/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

registered with the Reserve Bank of India as Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and hence the claim cannot be considered under section 36(1) or section 28 of the Act. The assessing officer also observed that the amount written off was never credited in the profit and loss account ... earlier years or current year and therefore condition laid down in section 36(1)(vi) read with section 36(2) are also not satisfied. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that carrying out financial transactions and deriving M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., should be allowed as trading loss

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1076/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

registered with the Reserve Bank of India as Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and hence the claim cannot be considered under section 36(1) or section 28 of the Act. The assessing officer also observed that the amount written off was never credited in the profit and loss account ... earlier years or current year and therefore condition laid down in section 36(1)(vi) read with section 36(2) are also not satisfied. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that carrying out financial transactions and deriving M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., should be allowed as trading loss