← 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)

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur vs. Dc/Ac Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 186/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

Section 36(1)(va)

interest. Rs.5,08,291: Disallowed expenditure under the head "Food & Beverages" to staff. Rs.28,17,546: Disallowed contribution towards Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) as not deposited before the due date. After the above disallowances, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1

Smt. Veena Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer (Special Range), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/LKW/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(va)

29/11/2021 at total income of Rs.4,59,32,212/- by making disallowance of Rs.24,22,448/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the basis of information contained in Form No.3CD. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has dismissed

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.4,43,94,826/- and Rs.5,99,57,626/-. These disallowances have been made by the AO with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that assessee has made advances out of interest bearing funds for non-business purposes, hence interest expenditure ... cases whose appeals are still pending in the Tribunal. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has a direct bearing, therefore, it is imperative upon us to take note of relevant part of this Section, which

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1015/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.4,43,94,826/- and Rs.5,99,57,626/-. These disallowances have been made by the AO with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that assessee has made advances out of interest bearing funds for non-business purposes, hence interest expenditure ... cases whose appeals are still pending in the Tribunal. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has a direct bearing, therefore, it is imperative upon us to take note of relevant part of this Section, which

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.4,43,94,826/- and Rs.5,99,57,626/-. These disallowances have been made by the AO with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that assessee has made advances out of interest bearing funds for non-business purposes, hence interest expenditure ... cases whose appeals are still pending in the Tribunal. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has a direct bearing, therefore, it is imperative upon us to take note of relevant part of this Section, which

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Rana Polycot Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1013/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.4,43,94,826/- and Rs.5,99,57,626/-. These disallowances have been made by the AO with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that assessee has made advances out of interest bearing funds for non-business purposes, hence interest expenditure ... cases whose appeals are still pending in the Tribunal. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has a direct bearing, therefore, it is imperative upon us to take note of relevant part of this Section, which

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata, vide order dated 22.12.2017. In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer made substantive additions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act (Rs. 30,80,96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit ... Leena Ramachandran (2010) 235 CTR 512 (Ker.) 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 if the assessee

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata, vide order dated 22.12.2017. In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer made substantive additions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act (Rs. 30,80,96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit ... Leena Ramachandran (2010) 235 CTR 512 (Ker.) 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 if the assessee

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

taxmann.com 1199 (Chattisgarh); has already settled the issue 2 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi in assessee’s favour and against the department that the above section 36(1)(va) disallowance of ESI/PF is a highly debatable issue to be rejected in section 143(1) “processing”, reading as under: “Sanjay K. Agrawal ... delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Indian Potash Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4578/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarindian Potash Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) Dcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Indian Potash Limited, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.88,67,868/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Pos Machine. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,55,840/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Sap License. 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,71,46,262/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Bad Debt Claimed On Which The Company Is Not Eligible For Taking The Benefit Of Claiming Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Norms Set By The Ministry Of Chemical & Fertilizers.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

portion of same was not actually received by the assessee. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim by reference to the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the balance addition

Indian Potash Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarindian Potash Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) Dcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Indian Potash Limited, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.88,67,868/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Pos Machine. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,55,840/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Sap License. 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,71,46,262/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Bad Debt Claimed On Which The Company Is Not Eligible For Taking The Benefit Of Claiming Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Norms Set By The Ministry Of Chemical & Fertilizers.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

portion of same was not actually received by the assessee. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim by reference to the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the balance addition

Yardi Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Circle 12, Pune, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 549/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Yardi Software India Private Vs. Acit, Circle-12, Pune. Limited, Second Floor, Sigma House, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune City, Pune, Shivaji Housing Society S.O.- 411016. Pan : Aaccr8107N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Court has dealt with various rulings and finally concluded the matter in favor of Revenue; the disallowance of Rs.38,80,972/-made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed payment of Employees Contribution to PF/ESI u/s 143(1) is confirmed. The grounds of appeal ... auditor in the audit report of the assessee and the CPC accordingly disallowed the employees contribution to PF of ₹ 38,80,972/- under section 36(1)(va) of the IT act on account of the delay of one-day. 4.2. Learned AR submitted before us that when no penalty

Corona Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2531/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri susanta Saha, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(ii)

stating that in the given facts and circumstances and as per the audited accounts and tax audit report, the provision of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act was not applicable and that the delay in depositing of ESI & PF was added back in the computation of Income. However ... ground that the 3 amount of Rs.3,04,518/- paid to its employees as bonus does not fall under the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in regard

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1930/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

balance sheet and audited financials, which clearly demonstrate the purpose and usage of such funds. Hence, no disallowance can be made under section 36(1)(iii) as: • The borrowed funds were not utilized for non-business purposes; • Interest expenditure pertains to borrowings used for commercial operations only. 3. Advances Were ... Nagreeka Foils Ltd. In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the disallowance of ₹58,42,413/- made under section 36(1)(iii) be deleted in full, and relief be granted to the assessee.” 11. We have considered the submissions made. The assessee has been able

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

I.T.A. Nos.: 1788, 1930 & 1789/KOL/2024 AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Nagreeka Foils Ltd. orders u/s 143(3)/263

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1788/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

balance sheet and audited financials, which clearly demonstrate the purpose and usage of such funds. Hence, no disallowance can be made under section 36(1)(iii) as: • The borrowed funds were not utilized for non-business purposes; • Interest expenditure pertains to borrowings used for commercial operations only. 3. Advances Were ... Nagreeka Foils Ltd. In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the disallowance of ₹58,42,413/- made under section 36(1)(iii) be deleted in full, and relief be granted to the assessee.” 11. We have considered the submissions made. The assessee has been able

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

deposited in the employee's account in the relevant fund before the date stipulated under the respective Acts. Thus, the deduction under Section 36(1) (va) of the IT Act can be allowed only if the employees' share in the relevant funds is deposited by the employer before ... date stipulated in respective Acts. As the appellant has failed to make compliance of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act, 1961 r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act, 1961, the AO was justified to disallow the deduction of Rs.2,05,049/- u/s 36(1

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

case, the reopening was made on the observations made during the Revenue Audit on non-compliance by the assessee of certain conditions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and in the Zuari Estate case, the assessee has not included certain transaction of property

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Macrotech Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by

ITA 1486/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

36(1)(vii) of the act without considering the fact that the assessee has claimed the said amount as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. However, the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled. Specifically, section 36 ... jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction India Pvt Ltd.260 ITR 579 which was rendered before the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.? 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting

Macrotech Developers Limited (Mdl), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by

ITA 1272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Macrotech Developers Limited (Mdl) Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Vs Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Acit – Cc – 7(3), Mumbai Macrotech Developers Private Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

36(1)(vii) of the act without considering the fact that the assessee has claimed the said amount as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. However, the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled. Specifically, section 36 ... jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction India Pvt Ltd.260 ITR 579 which was rendered before the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.? 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting