“Section 36(1)”

Tirupati Procon Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-25(3), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

loan in earlier years. Both the loaner companies are assessed to tax and admittedly loan is used for business purposes, therefore, provisions of section 36(1)(iii) clearly apply in case of the assessee. He has submitted that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and since interest is paid ... been used by the assessee for making investment in shares of M/s Om Shubham Housing and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. for business purposes. Section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act provides for the deduction, when the amount of interest is paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

matters to become final. The ITAT also noticed that „hundi discounting charges‟ was a different nomenclature of “interest paid” which is governed by Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ITAT noted the definition of interest in Section 2(28A). The impugned order took note of the Supreme Court ... satisfied to claim deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital and that the expression „for the purpose of business‟ under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37 is wider than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profits and gains” under Section 57(iii). Therefore, it was held

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - III vs. M/S Dd Industries Ltd

following substantial questions of law for the decision of this Court: (1) Did the ITAT fall into error in its interpretation of Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that ... disallowance could be made in the assessment years in dispute, as facts were identical. It was also held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be extended to advances given in the AY which are opening balances during the year. 8. The ITAT recorded its conclusions as follows

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) -III vs. M/S Dd Industries Ltd

following substantial questions of law for the decision of this Court: (1) Did the ITAT fall into error in its interpretation of Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that ... disallowance could be made in the assessment years in dispute, as facts were identical. It was also held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be extended to advances given in the AY which are opening balances during the year. 8. The ITAT recorded its conclusions as follows

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - III vs. M/S Dd Industries Ltd

following substantial questions of law for the decision of this Court: (1) Did the ITAT fall into error in its interpretation of Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that ... disallowance could be made in the assessment years in dispute, as facts were identical. It was also held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be extended to advances given in the AY which are opening balances during the year. 8. The ITAT recorded its conclusions as follows

M/S Titanor Components Ltd vs. CIT & Anr

The appeals are dismissed

allowance), Section 33(development rebate allowance), and Section 41 (balancing charge). 13."Actual cost" of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. This reasoning flows from a bare reading of Section 43(1). Section 43 defines certain terms relevant to income ... those Sections like Sections 32, 32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eds Electronic Data Systems (India ) Pvt Ltd

applicable only to sections 32, 32A, 33 and 41, which deal with depreciation or investment allowance. There is no such concept in section 36(1)(iii). This would mean that if the assessee becomes entitled to the deduction of the expenditure as repairs of the leased premises, the provision ... computation of total income on account of Bad Debts written off not passed through the profit and loss account. Under the provision of section 36(1)(vii), amount of any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous

Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax V & Anr

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

banking 2012:DHC:5656-DB ITA 634/2009 & 660/2009 Page 8 of 12 financial corporation (NBFC) had claimed deduction of certain amount under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being provision for NPAs in terms of NBFC‟s Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998 on the ground that

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

that. It pertains to the Assessment Year 1996- 97. To put it in nutshell, during the year, the assessee created special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act amounting to `12,906.18 lacs. The assessee had an opening balance of `26,963 lacs ... doubtful loans and thus, the assessee carried forward a sum of `34,869.18 lacs by way of special reserve under Section 36 (1) (viii) of the Act. This balance appears in the annual accounts of the assessee in Schedule II under the head “Reserve and Surplus”. Thus the position

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Modipon Ltd

fact, it is a matter of pure interpretation of the provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), particularly Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, in order to understand the implication, it would be necessary to take note of facts of one appeal. We, accordingly ... after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules. Accordingly, he made addition of Ks.42,58,574/- being employees' contribution under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs.30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Monnet Industries Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

being a sum of Rs 3,50,83,472/- incurred for the purposes of setting up of sugar plant, as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In respect of the balance amount in the sum of Rs 2,15,95,798/-, out of total expenditure amounting ... borrowed capital to the extent of Rs 3,50,83,472/-, as claimed by the assessee, ought to be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act for the reasons given hereinafter. It is important to note, as mentioned hereinabove, that the balance sum of money amounting

Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd

1585/Del/2002 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue which arises for consideration is the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(5a) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43(B) to the assessee in respect of employer/employees contributions towards provident fund payments which were ... questions of law:- “(a) Whether amounts paid on account of PF/ESI after „due date‟ are allowable in view of Section 43B, read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd Proviso to Section 43 by way of amendment by the Finance