← 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)

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 284/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 283/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

ITO Ward - 7(2), New Delhi vs. Dks Sales (P) Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 9887/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. M/S. Dks Sales (P) Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), A-24, A-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaecd4730F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

pager no 73 to 78 of paper book): Some extract of the case is as under: "In this connection we may refer to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which states that "the amount of the interest paid in respect ... under Section 28 of the Act." "In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating

Kailash Motors, Kanpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without giving opportunity to the assessee, as far as applicability of section 36(1)(iii) was concerned. He submitted that the issue regarding

Kailash Motors, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without giving opportunity to the assessee, as far as applicability of section 36(1)(iii) was concerned. He submitted that the issue regarding

Kailash Motors, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 15/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without giving opportunity to the assessee, as far as applicability of section 36(1)(iii) was concerned. He submitted that the issue regarding

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1923/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.16,84,704/- as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income. 10. THAT the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, has grossly erred ... justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(2), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1887/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.16,84,704/- as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income. 10. THAT the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, has grossly erred ... justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(2), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1886/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.16,84,704/- as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income. 10. THAT the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, has grossly erred ... justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant

JCIT (OSD)Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 3334/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 8O

gains from business. The issue arising for consideration, is whether the aforesaid condition imposed by CIT is valid. On a reading of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, it appears that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way contribution towards recognized provident fund ... allowed as deduction subject to such condition as the Board may prescribe. Whereas, Section 36(1)(v) of the Act says any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund has to be allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

gains from business. The issue arising for consideration, is whether the aforesaid condition imposed by CIT is valid. On a reading of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, it appears that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way contribution towards recognized provident fund ... allowed as deduction subject to such condition as the Board may prescribe. Whereas, Section 36(1)(v) of the Act says any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund has to be allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, Jabalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur Pan:Axyps7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.10.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Dated 17.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Nafc Was Wrong In Law For Not Allowing The Deduction For Payment Of Rs. 56,39,017/- Under Section 36(1)(Vi) On Account Of Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic Amount. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic On Or Before Due Date For Furnishing Return Of Income Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 139 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Employer Is Entitled For Deduction. 2. That The Both Employee Contribution Epf Rs.49,38,777/- & Esic Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-Which Has Been Deposited With A Small Delay Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Covid-19. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Before Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(vi)

That the learned CIT (A) NAFC was wrong in law for not allowing the deduction for payment of Rs. 56,39,017/- under section 36(1)(vi) on account of employee contribution of EPF and ESIC amount. Whereas the assessee had deposited the employee contribution of EPF & ESIC

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 3, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2798/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am) Small Industries Development Principal Bank Of India Commissioner Of I.T. Swavalamban Bhavan, C-11 Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th G Block, Bandra Kurala Floor, Aayakar Complex, Bandra East Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabcs3480N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Chhajed &
Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

where it was held that Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct enquiries/applied his mind while allowing the correct deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 2. In this impugned case, the Ld. AO followed the order of ITAT in appellant’s own case and computed the deduction ... under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, where it was held as follows :- “In view of the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(c) produced above, it can be seen that the amount of deduction is computed by viewing the total income computed before making any deduction under this

Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 403/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Gyan Cirkitronics Private Vs. Acit-3, Lucknow-New Limited, Plot No. 6-B, Malviya Nagar Aishbagh, Lucknow, U.P. 226004 Pan:Aabcg2210J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwashi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A), Thane, Dated 03.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Which Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 154 Dated 29.04.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed Under Section 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Cpc Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made Under Section 143(1)(A). 4. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Not Allowing Expenses Of Rs. 833161/- Invoking Section 36(1)(Va), 5. That The Order Passed Is Against The Merit, Circumstances & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwashi, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

That the Learned Lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in not allowing expenses of Rs. 833161/- invoking section 36(1)(va), 5. That the order passed is against the merit, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. 5. That the appellant seeks permission to modify

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance of Commission Paid ... Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act" (7) "Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income u/s.14A r.w.r

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1)(iii) 7 Disallowance of Sales Promotion / Business 23,05,47,312 Promotion Expenses under Section 37 8 Disallowance of Commission Paid ... Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act" (7) "Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income u/s.14A r.w.r

Padmanabh Pioneer Promoters LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 5848/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5848/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Padmanabh Pioneer V/S. Ito – 25(3)(1), Mumbai Promoters Llp बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- 4 Buona Casa, Sir P.M. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Road, Fort Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400001 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfp9898G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi
Section 250Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii), it was stated by the AO that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will be enforced based on the adverse findings (if any) by the appellate

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

alleged to be diverted for non- business or personal purposes. Thus, the allowability of the claim whether under section 24(b) or under section 36(1)(iii) or under section 57 does not alter the total income of the appellant. Hence, the entire issue becomes academic in nature. Respectfully following