← 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)

Canpac Trends Pvt. Ltd., Bavla vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.271/Ahd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2017-18 Canpac Trends Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.338, Chiyada Village : Chiyada B/H. Jerala Gidc Ahmedabad – 382 220 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 9858 M बनाम / V/S. The Acit Circle-1(1)(2) Ahmedabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Dr. Sanjay Lal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: : 16/01/2025 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre - Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Dated 25/08/2021, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Lal, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

failed to address all issues raised by the AO. The AO focused on two major issues during the assessment: (i) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va): • The AO observed that the assessee had delayed depositing employees' contributions to PF/ESI amounting to Rs.1,41,730/-, beyond the due dates prescribed under ... filing the return under Section 139(1), the AO disallowed the claim, citing the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). (ii) Addition under Section 56(2)(viib): • The assessee issued 7,85,000 shares at a face value of Rs.10/-, charging premiums ranging from

Kinetic Advertising India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6051/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekinetic Advertising India Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax – Circle 16(1), Mumbai 7Th & 8Th Floor, Wing-A, The Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Orb-Sahar, Village Marol, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri East, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Colony S.O., Andheri-400 099 Pan: Aabcp1311M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

delayed payment of employees' contributions to the Provident Fund amounting to Rs.5,44,561/-, which was disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This issue was brought before the Tribunal; however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Checkmate Services

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ashar It Park, Thane West vs. Aplab Limited, Digha Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3166/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 250Section 35Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69C

disallowed the interest presuming that the assessee has also taken loans on which it was paying interest, and therefore, provisions of section 36(1)(iii) were applicable. Ld. AO, therefore, disallowed the claim of interest of loans and advances to the extent of interest free funds provided to its sister

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Goneka Treading, Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1524/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes ********* New Delhi, Dated 30th May, 2016 Subject: - Admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under section 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961- reg. Proposals have been received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding ... part of assessee to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. 2. Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 amended the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereafter referred to as the Act) to rationalize the provisions regarding allowability of bad debt with

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Goenka Trading Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1425/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes ********* New Delhi, Dated 30th May, 2016 Subject: - Admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under section 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961- reg. Proposals have been received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding ... part of assessee to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. 2. Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 amended the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereafter referred to as the Act) to rationalize the provisions regarding allowability of bad debt with

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Goenka Trading Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1424/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes ********* New Delhi, Dated 30th May, 2016 Subject: - Admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under section 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961- reg. Proposals have been received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding ... part of assessee to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. 2. Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 amended the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereafter referred to as the Act) to rationalize the provisions regarding allowability of bad debt with

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S / Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: ShriAshish Heliwal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

guidelines which cannot be equated with provision for bad and doubtful debts as required to be made as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the disallowance ... pertaining to non-Rural bad debts claimedu/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act ignoring the 1st proviso to section 36(1)(vii). (vi) Whether the CIT(A) was right in holding that the provisions of 36(1)(viia) of the Act do not apply to bad debts made

Shree Shivam Attires Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 111/Rpr/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Infrastructure Vs. ITO (supra) are as under: 13. As far as the issue involved pertaining to claiming of deduction under section 36 (1) (va) of the IT Act 1961 on delayed payment of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF of Rs. 19,84,415, in the instant case is concerned ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2851/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.2851/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 207, Sarthik-Ii, Ward-4(1)(3), Opp. Rajpath Club, Ahmedabad. S.G Highway, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Aagcs2593B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Firoj Bodla, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ap Singh, Cit. Dr 16.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoj Bodla, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

confirming disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 2,44,50,181/- on the ground that such expenses ought to have been capitalized under section 36(1)(iii). The addition confirmed by the Hon’ble CIT-A being without regard to the provisions of the section 36(1) (iii) and other

West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2064/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4A

been duly offered to tax. It is further pertinent to mention herein that specified entity as defined in Explanation (a)(i) & (ii) to Section 36(1)(viii) meaning a financial corporation specified in Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 and WBIDC satisfies this criterion as we have already discussed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 264Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

account of delayed deposit of employees' P.F. contribution in the government account u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

bank and a banking company have been treated separate and independent from each other for which our reference was also drawn to Section 36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified person is responsible ... Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad (supra), had set aside the view expressed by the CIT(A) that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against the provisions allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. The relevant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

ITA 222/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Abrarana &Anantham, A.Rs
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)

correct in holding that the penalties levied under section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act are allowable expenditure. ix. Whether deduction under section 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 64B.t of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

ITA 1154/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Abarana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 38(1)

correct in holding that the penalties levied under section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act are allowable as expenditure. ix. Whether deduction under section 36(1)(vii)a of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 641B of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 is to be allowed on the total outstanding

Gyan Cirkitronics Private Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 97/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragyan Cirkitronics Pvt Ltd Dcit/Acit-3, V. Plot No.6-B, Malviya Nagar, Lucknow New, Uttar Aishbag, Lucknow-226004. Pradesh. Pan:Aabcg2210J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Jai Nath Verma, Addl. Cit. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jai Nath Verma, Addl. CIT. (DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

That the Learned Lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in not allowing expenses of Rs.9,92,893/- invoking section 36(1)(va). 5. That the order passed is against the merit, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. 6. That the appellant seeks permission

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

High Court as well as the authorities below on the aforesaid question was not correct. 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 ... measure of commercial expediency. 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 to Section

Tandem Data Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Jurisdiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kaushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief issue for consideration is the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 4,32,177/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being the sum received from employees’ contribution towards any Provident Fund or superannuation fund. The said disallowance was made under ... Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the AO, CPC. 5. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that there was a delay of only one day in depositing Provident Fund and ESIC and the assessee had deposited this amount on 15th of the month

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee. 5. Similarly, on account of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act made addition of Rs.11,556/- to the total income of the assessee. The assessee accepted the above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Kler Wines, Chandigarh vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

27/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 wherein the limited issue relates to sustenance of addition of Rs. 30,65,324/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee ... carried on by the assessee and therefore, the amount of Rs. 17,26,823/- cannot be subject matter of disallowance invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 5. It was further submitted that regarding the loans and advances to related parties totaling