“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)

Kamla Landmarc Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1624/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. A disallowance to the amount of Rs.66,885/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on delayed payment made to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was made by the Assessing Officer. This disallowance was made ... Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date. The Ld.CIT

Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7136/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Jana (AR)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Rs.5.89 crore is borrowed funds. ………………” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The above observations, though made by the AO while dealing with the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, are relevant for the issue before us. It is admitted fact that the Appellant had own funds of around 22.5 Crores

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4857/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Income-Tax, 3(2) Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Respondent .. Appellant M/S Kotak Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Income-Tax-3(2) 227 Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 3

Mahindra Bank Ltd. Rs.24,14,97,278/- u/s 36(2)(v) on the ground that the bad debt related to advances to which Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applicable and the bad debt have to be necessarily debited to the provisions for bad and doubtful debt. The assessee ... explained that since the bad debt of Rs.24,14,97,278/- was more than the amount of provision allowed as per Section 36(1)(viia) which was Rs.14,35,29,262/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.9,79,68,016/- has been claimed as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 636/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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 ... 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

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

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

Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... 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

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the filling of Income Tax return due date as per section 139 (1) are allowable expenses and cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va). But the Ld. Assessing Officer (CPC) without appreciating the legal position and facts of the case made the above mentioned addition and the assessee ... 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

Final Copy (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1192/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalefinal Copy (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3)(1) C/18, First Floor Royal Room No. 524, 5Th Industrial Estate, Sb Floor, Aayakar Naigaon Cross Road, Bhavan, Mk Marg, Wadala, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020. 400031. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf7458 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Gunjan Kakkad.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Yadav.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai Passed 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Gunjan Kakkad.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Yadav.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 68/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

been carefullyconsidered. According to the learned counsel the interest claimed by the assessee is a period cost and has to be allowed under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of the Taparia tools ... wherein the Supreme Court held that the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether the provisions of section 36 (1) (iii) read with section 43 (2) of the act was satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are prospective in nature and CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

Abhyudaya Coop Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, 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, M.K. Road Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujale Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujaleFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee’s submissions are summarized and briefly reproduced in the order which is reproduced below: - a) Before Applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of Income-tax Act to Co-Op Banks that is prior to 01/04/2006 bank had created provision for bad and doubtful debt reserve account ... written off against the BDDR provisions made before 01.04.2006 (as these advances were classified as NPA before 31.03.2006) i.e. before applicability of the section 36(1)(viia) to Co-op. Banks. d) The assessment in the said case was completed under Sec.143(3) on 31.01.2014 when no addition was made

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Rs.15,88,11,799/- from total amount of Bad Debts written off. He failed to appreciate the true scope and meaning of Section 36(1)(viia). The view taken by the Department that the entire current year's provision was disallowable is wholly contrary to the object and wording ... Section 36(1)(viia). He ought to have allowed deduction for Bad Debts U/s 36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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 ... 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

Aquarius Maritime Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 6 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 127/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 274Section 74A(3)

business of freight forwarding and clearing and that the expenditure towards horses written off is eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act has not been accepted because the assessee has failed to substantiate if activity of breeding and maintaining race horse

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

India Grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 22. The AO made a disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) qua “write off” of non rural advances to the tune of Rs.10,50,55,44,005/- which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld ... assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of Bad Debts written off (other than in respect of 22 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 639/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

NFAC, Delhi, was not correct in confirming the disallowance made the CPC, by taking a view that the amended amendments made to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act 202~ are retrospective in nature as the said amendment was specifically made applicable from 1st April ... debatable and hence appeal cannot be entertained from an order u/s 154 of the I.T.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. 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B