← 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)

Techno Trexim (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 37

fixed assets and hence not available for making investment in shares of more than 45 crore in group companies. The AO referred to section 36(1)(iii) of the LT. Act to point out that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business ... paid by the assessee on loans relating to investment in shares is dis-allowable 11 ITA No.468/Del/2024 ITA No.582/Del/2024 u/s 14A r.w.r.8D and section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was not invoked on similar facts earlier or later assessment proceedings of AY 2017-18 . The assessee has claimed that

Nagaur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Nagaur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur

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

ITA 882/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

perusal of record, we find that the disallowance of relief payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claimed as per the information furnished in the return of income. 5. Presently the issue of employees contribution ... Apex Courts in the case of “Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra)” disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147 u/s 154 read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the impugned order passed

The Modas Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Arvalli vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1573/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Modasa Nagarik Sahakari The Acit बनाम/ Bank Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Sutharwada, Nr.Nagar Palika Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Po: Modasa – 383 315 Ahmedabad-380 015 Dist. Aravalli (S.K.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaat 0525 G (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

directed to verify the claim of expenditure and if the assessee is entitled to the same under the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the same may be allowed to the assessee. 8. Ground No.3 is general in nature. 9. In view of the above discussion, appeal

Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2700/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

allowed independently based on the statutory percentages, irrespective of the quantum of provision made ? 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that section 36(1)(viia) provides for a statutory deduction, the quantum of which is determined by the prescribed percentages of total income and aggregate average rural advances ... provisioning norms regulate financial reporting, whereas tax deductions are governed exclusively by the Income-tax Act. The assessee traced the legislative history of section 36(1)(viia) through successive Finance Acts to demonstrate the consistent intent of Parliament to incentivise rural banking.Reliance was placed on decisions such as Syndicate Bank

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2699/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2699/Chny/2025 &2700/Chny/2025 By Revenue C.O.No.92/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2699/Chny/2025)& C.O.No.93/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2700/Chny/2025) By Assessee निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Non Corp Circle Ii, Madurai, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bb Kulam Madurai-625002, Madurai, Tamil Nadu (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) V. Virudhunagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited 104/1, Madurai Road, Kamaraj Nagar, S.O. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar- 626001. Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aaaav 0147 N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे//Assessee By Mr. R. Prasanna Venkatesan, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे Respondent/Revenue By Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

allowed independently based on the statutory percentages, irrespective of the quantum of provision made ? 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that section 36(1)(viia) provides for a statutory deduction, the quantum of which is determined by the prescribed percentages of total income and aggregate average rural advances ... Chny 2025 DCIT NON CIRCLE II MADURAI VS VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED Act. The assessee traced the legislative history of section 36(1)(viia) through successive Finance Acts to demonstrate the consistent intent of Parliament to incentivise rural banking.Reliance was placed on decisions such as Syndicate Bank

Avalon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 3(2), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8994/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara**

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI** ## **BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER** ## **ITA No.8994/Del/2025

M/S Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1609/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1609/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2014-15 M/S Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No. 278, Industrial Area, Vs Circle 1(1), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacck4673L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

confirming the addition of Rs.5,38,557/- u/s 14A and addition of Rs.3,43,854/- which was added with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, at the relevant time was engaged in manufacturing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Pune

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(u)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 61,91,173/- made under Section 36(1)(u) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the assessee had advanced interest-free/low-interest loans to group concerns while claiming substantial

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

advances were made out of its own funds. Accordingly, interest 4 Ladderup Finance Limited expenditure of Rs. 7,08,213/- was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4.4. Further, a sum of Rs. 2,800/- was disallowed under section 94(7) of the Act on account ... already disallowed, Rule 8D was invoked without proper satisfaction, and disallowance under section 14A could not exceed exempt income. With respect to section 36(1)(iii), it was submitted that the advances were for business considerations and that additional disallowance over and above the amount agreed during assessment was unjustified

Warana Indusries Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1285/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submissions filed)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

that the same is paid against their credit balance / payable account or advance for purchases and therefore, no such disallowance and provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act are attracted. It is also the alternate submission of the assessee that the company has adequate interest-free funds

Deupty Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anand Rathi Commodities Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5983/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

following additions: - Disallowance of Rs. 3,08,35,862/-, treating the same as bad debts written off and holding that the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act were not satisfied; and - Disallowance of Rs. 1,10,75,000/- on account of loss on operation / client claim, holding ... paper book page No. 30). It was also explained that, in the year of creation, such provision was duly disallowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as it was only a provision and not an actual write-off of the parties’ balances (as per computation of income

Ruchi Jain, Panipat vs. Assessing Officer, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6278/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

That the Learned CIT Appeal erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs 75,61,721 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the said amount was not an 1 ... contrary to facts and law and deserves to be set aside, and the disallowance of Rs 75,61,72/-1 made under Section 36(1)(iii) should be deleted in full. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear cut case of misunderstanding

Fujiyama Power Systems, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

ITA 977/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

Addition of Rs. 35,62,089/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); (iv) Addition of Rs. 4,79,88,545/- on account of mismatch of income as per Form 26AS

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Para 3] [In favour of assessee] [2023] 155 taxmann.com 290 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Canara Bank* Section 36(1)(viia), read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts, in case of banks (Reassessment) - Assessment years ... that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in respect of claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia), Tribunal rightly held that reopening assessment initiated beyond four years was bad in law - Whether SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order

Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 1179/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 68

making additions of Rs. 8,77,278/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS and further disallowance of EPF & ESI under Section 36(1)(va) for Rs. 3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 11,08,678/-, disallowance of expenses claimed ... sustained additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of interest on TDS, disallowance of EPF & ESI and disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of seed purchases

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1678/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

view that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,42,572/- represent interest account and not provision. The same is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee's appeal on ground no 3 is allowed.” 8.1 We also find that the assessee pointed out that the report

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sahyadri Agencies Limited, Moothedath House Arikanniyur

ITA 4257/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the borrowed funds were not utilized wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business ... borrowed funds were invested in shares held as investments and in other non-business advances, which do not qualify as business purposes under section 36(1)(iii)? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in concluding that the interest

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building vs. M/S Hindustan Thermal Projects Limited, Delhi, India

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5336/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

grievance raised in the instant appeal that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in reversing the assessment findings invoking section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.35 lakhs thereby alleging diversion of interest-bearing funds as non-business purposes, the lower appellate findings under challenge ... High Court as well as the authorities below on the aforesaid question was not correct. 19. 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

M/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

having been incurred are as follows: (a) Ground no. 1; Addition of Rs. 16,18,775/- made u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). 10 Ground nos. 2 to 5; Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the act for credit in the name

New Star System Solution Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-18(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3585/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein assessment order dated 31.12.2016 was upheld and disallowance of expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 3,46,87,318/- was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below ... reflected from the financials of the company that the borrowed funds are used for investment and not for business purpose and as per Section 36(1) sub section (iii) of the Act, the deduction shall be allowed in respect of the amount of interest paid if the capital is borrowed