← 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)

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4162/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat
Section 1

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Jitendra Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1083/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshtriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

with respect to interest expenses amounting to Rs. 59,25,359/-, which as per the assessee should have been claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as business expenses. This, according to the assessee, was an error on the part of the assessee and he submitted that only ... been wrongly claimed against “income from other sources”, instead of making such claim under the head “income from business or profession” under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act since the same has been incurred for the purpose of business and profession. The remaining expenditure

Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri E.S.Ranganath, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viii)

have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The provisions of section 36(1)(viii) deals with deduction of 20% of profit derived from eligible business of providing long term finance. As per the said provisions, in respect ... considered view that the Assessing Officer / Ld.CIT(A) erred in excluding other income for the purpose of computing eligible profit in terms of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 9. Further, the assessee claims that it is following similar method for computing eligible profits for the purpose of section

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

profit from the eligible business can be verified, so also the assessee could not produce the details of infrastructure projects specified as per section 36(1)(viii) and the RBI guidelines are different to a large extent and the assessee could not substantiate that the profit and gain derived from ... have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Provisions of section 36(1)(viii) deals with deduction towards any special reserve created and maintained by specified entity, an amount not exceeding 20% of the profit derived from eligible business

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile- Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

profit from the eligible business can be verified, so also the assessee could not produce the details of infrastructure projects specified as per section 36(1)(viii) and the RBI guidelines are different to a large extent and the assessee could not substantiate that the profit and gain derived from ... have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Provisions of section 36(1)(viii) deals with deduction towards any special reserve created and maintained by specified entity, an amount not exceeding 20% of the profit derived from eligible business

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

profit from the eligible business can be verified, so also the assessee could not produce the details of infrastructure projects specified as per section 36(1)(viii) and the RBI guidelines are different to a large extent and the assessee could not substantiate that the profit and gain derived from ... have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Provisions of section 36(1)(viii) deals with deduction towards any special reserve created and maintained by specified entity, an amount not exceeding 20% of the profit derived from eligible business

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

profit from the eligible business can be verified, so also the assessee could not produce the details of infrastructure projects specified as per section 36(1)(viii) and the RBI guidelines are different to a large extent and the assessee could not substantiate that the profit and gain derived from ... have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Provisions of section 36(1)(viii) deals with deduction towards any special reserve created and maintained by specified entity, an amount not exceeding 20% of the profit derived from eligible business

Vellanikkara Service Co Operative Bank, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 846/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vellanikkara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Madakathara, Thrissur 680651 [Pan: Aaaav7463M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22.08.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Is A Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 27.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 3,99, 21,348/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 03.03.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A 2 Vellanikkara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Total Income Of Rs. 4,11,71,348/- Denying Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 40A(7)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vellanikkara Service

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Centre (CPC), Bengaluru issuing intimation U/s 143(1) of the IT Act. CPC has processed the return and has triggered the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act and has made a disallowance of Rs.4,64,730/- on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution ... that have been made available on the statue vide the Finance Act, 2021, i.e, “Explanation 5” to Section 43B and “Explanation 2” to Section 36(1)(va), i.e, as to whether those are applicable prospectively w.e.f A.Y 2021-22 onwards, or, are to be given a retrospective effect. Issue

Manish Ranjan DCIT Central Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad, Ashram Road vs. Oswal Extrusion Limited, Ushmanpura

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

ITA 642/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

Infrastructure Ltd. and accordingly, debited interest expenditure of Rs. 933.52 lakhs in the Profit & Loss Account. The Assessing Officer held that as per Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, deduction for interest paid in respect of capital borrowed is allowable only if borrowed fund has been utilized ... Infrastructure Ltd. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of proportionate interest @ 12% of interest free advances of Rs. 30,50,00,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 33,66,00,000/- on account of interest bearing funds being utilized for non-business purposes

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

assessee to establish that the advancing interest free loans to sister concerns falls within the purview of business activities within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... thereof for non-business purposes, there should be nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction under section 36(1)(lit) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

assessee to establish that the advancing interest free loans to sister concerns falls within the purview of business activities within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... thereof for non-business purposes, there should be nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction under section 36(1)(lit) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

Year 2020-21. 2.Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Disallowance as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well as on facts in adding ... provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. 2 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 2. Penalty Proceedings initiated u/s 270A(2)(a)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well

Binay Rambahal Singh, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1099/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Binay Rambahal Singh Income Tax Officer, 112, Sankaip Row House Society Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Aayakar बनाम Ugat Canal Road, Jahangira Bag. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Near Prabhudarshan Society, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 130 [Pan : Azyps 7939 M] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 139Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee also submitted that constitutional validity of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) alongwith Explanation-2 and Explanation-5 to Section 43B of the Act are challenged before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Special Civil Application No. 270 of 2022, which has been admitted for hearing vide order

M/S Little Kanhaya Knitwears, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 724/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Sew Krishnagar Baharampore Highways Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.193/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sew Krishnagar Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1) Baharampore Highways Hyderabad Limited Hyderabad [Pan :Aapcs5143Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad & Shri K.Rajendra Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 9 Days. It Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining Reasons Thereof. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Having Regard To The Reasons Given In The Petition, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad &For Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 154Section 21Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)

also reported interest debited to P&L account once again at clause 21(i) of the Tax Audit Report, as amount admissible under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee has disallowed and added back total interest expenditure of Rs.137.87 crores to the total income. The CPC processed ... under clause 13(e) under ICDS adjustments and another in clause 21(i) as the ‘amount inadmissible under the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act’. Since the assessee has filed relevant evidences and proved that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards interest expenditure u/s 36

Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

ITA 80/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Banaluru for the assessment year 2019-2020 on 27.10.2020 an amount of Rs.24,16,427/- was disallowed by virtue of provision contained in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which pertained to sum received from employees as contribution to provided Fund, ESI etc. 2.2 That assessee being aggrieved ... observed and held as under : "53. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1 )(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1 )(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms