← 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)

Bofa Securities India Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4192/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhribofa Securities India V/S. Acit-Circle-(4)(1)(1), Limited बनाम Mumbai Ground Floor, A Wing, One Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Bkc, G Block, Bkc, Road, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd0535G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction of INR 48,25,365 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act towards alleged delay in depositing the employee's contribution towards provident fund (PF) as per the time limit mentioned under ... below: “6. The salutary issue involves disallowance of the employees' contribution to PF relatable to wages for May, 2021 on the contours of Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act owing to one day delay in deposit of Employees' Contribution. As amply demonstrated on behalf

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Thane, Ashar It Part, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited, Sandozbaugh So Thane

ITA 3325/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Brahma Chandra Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Range 17, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 Awho Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), Cgo, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, Up-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpy5867K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO(CPC) in disallowing the employee contribution of Rs.8,15,451/- under Section 36(1)(va) with respect to PF/ESI when the same was deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income. It was further argued ... expressed any view in this order, on whether the aforesaid amendments brought in by Finance Act, 2021 [whereby Explanation-2 was inserted in Section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act and Explanation-5 was inserted in Section 43B of Income Tax Act] are prospective or retrospective. In the light

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 659/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

scheme as well as GPF scheme which are not deposited by the assessee company should not be disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding ... date of filing of the return of income as mandated in Section 43B of the Act. Further, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in order to claim the allowance of GPF, the assessee company is required to deposit the amount received from the employees

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 645/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

scheme as well as GPF scheme which are not deposited by the assessee company should not be disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding ... date of filing of the return of income as mandated in Section 43B of the Act. Further, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in order to claim the allowance of GPF, the assessee company is required to deposit the amount received from the employees

Ujwal Fine Homes, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 491/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 171Section 263

allowable as deduction. The screen shot of the copy filed by the Assessee is reproduced here as under : 4.3.2 As per Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Act the Amount needs to be written Off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Also

Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.1,99,520/- assessed under section 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act 1961 in respect to interest paid to M/s Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. 8. The assessee denies liability to pay interest

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance ... account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance ... account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

with Rule 8D of the Act. The remaining amount of interest at Rs.97,63,413/- was disallowed in view of the provisions of section 36(1) (iii) of the Act as also in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Superme Court in the case of S.A. Builders and that

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi vs. Boeing India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2019-20 Dcit, Circle 4(2), Boeing India Private Limited, Room No. 384, 3Rd Floor, 3Rd Floor, Dlf Centre, Vs. C.R. Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 1 (Pan:- Aahcb1218P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Kshitij Bansal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Kshitij Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

disallow the following: i) Employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF) amounting to Rs.1,86,20,241/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, deposited after the due date prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing the ROI under section 139(1

Schaeffler India Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (Jao-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

ITA 692/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda v. Asstt. DIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420/199 ITD 28 (Bang. - Trib ... made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF while electronically processing return of income under section 143(1

Siwana Agri Marketing Limited (Now Merged With Vital Connections LLP), Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1094/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Siwana Agri Marketing Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ (Now Merged With Vital Circle-4(1)(1) V/S. Connections Llp) Ahmedabad 401, Ashopalav Apartments Near Suvidha Shopping Centre Paldi Ahmedabad – 380 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccs 9598 J (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(2)

determining total income at Rs.97,85,762/-. 2.1. The AO disallowed Rs.65,86,200/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, observing that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans amounting to Rs.5.48 crores while incurring significant interest expenses on unsecured borrowings. The AO held that the assessee failed ... learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of interest expense of Rs.65,86,200/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and therefore the learned AO be directed to allow the interest expense while computing Total Income. 2. The learned National

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Ltd.( Erstwhile Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara

ITA 299/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda v. Asstt. DIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420/199 ITD 28 (Bang. - Trib ... made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF while electronically processing return of income under section 143(1

Schaeffler India Ltd.(A Successor of Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Earlier ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur), Vadodara

ITA 275/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Recently in the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda v. Asstt. DIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420/199 ITD 28 (Bang. - Trib ... made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF while electronically processing return of income under section 143(1

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

that the Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts is allowed only to Co-operative Banks and financial institutions subject to certain limits specified in Section 36(1)(viia) and that to only up to the extent it is in excess of credit balance in the provision for bad & doubtful debts account ... furnishing of the return of income the same shall be allowed as deduction under the Income Tax Act. The assessing Officer relying on section 36(1)(va) disallowed all those payments which are deposited after due date For sake of convenience, section 36(1)(va) & section 43B are reproduced

Nuevosol Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.958/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nuevosol Energy Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-16(1) [Pan : Aadcn7551K] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 27/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/07/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts & Also The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.2,65,80,027

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

before the CIT(A) and submitted that it has satisfied the conditions for claiming deduction towards bad debts in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act and as per said provisions, the only requirement is to write off bad debts in the books ... applies only to items, which do not fall in section 30 to 36. If a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from section 36(1)(vii), then such a provision cannot claim deduction u/s 37 of the Act, even on the basis of real income theory as explained above

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 3272/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

action of the Ld. A.O. in disallowing the employees contribution of PF amounting to Rs.1,96,127/-, by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds ... loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

accounts and was therefore was added to the income of the assessee. An interest disallowance of Rs. 5,92,835/- was made under Section 36(1), as the interest expenses claimed by the assessee could not be fully justified with proper documentation and the underlying purpose. Moreover, an amount

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Rockman Industries Limited, Focal Point

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

while calculating the capitalization of interest. 10. If your honour held that the interest is to be capitalized as per proviso to section 36(1)(iii), then the addition should be considered separately while computing the income of Haridwar Unit for allowing the deduction u/s 80IC ... assets which have not been put to use for business purposes cannot be allowed as revenue expenses in view of provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and needs to be capitalized. On the Other hand, the assessee company has submitted that the assessee company has not borrowed