← 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)

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

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

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant ... India vs Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P.) Ltd [2018] 91 taxmann.com 67 (SC) in interpreting the words 'such debt' contained in proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant ... India vs Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P.) Ltd [2018] 91 taxmann.com 67 (SC) in interpreting the words 'such debt' contained in proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

derived from eligible business computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" after making deductions under all other clauses of section 36(1) which includes the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) also?” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee ... against the returned income of Rs.15,52,64,02,220 filed on 29- Sep-2016. 2. The provisions of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act provides for the deductions to specified entities in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank not exceeding

Smt Systems LLP, Pune vs. The ACIT, Circle -2, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1247/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

./2024 1. The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs.1,34,087/- towards delay in deposit of Employees Contribution to ESIC under section 36(1)(va) and the learned CIT Appeals erred in confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in making addition towards delay in deposit

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

assessee company also submitted that due to the clarification amendment in the Finance Act,2021 by way of adding explanation-2 in the section 36(1)(va) which says that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes ... assessee has not submitted any supporting documents/evidences in support his claim of financial constraints. Further, AO held that from the plain reading of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it is very much clear that the assessee has to deposit the employee's contribution within the stipulated date

Om Sri Maa Shakti Namah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 1989/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Interest paid Less: Interest Received from others Less: Interest on FD Interest Expenses Reported in Profit & Loss Statement and claimed under section 36(1)(iii) 1,97,13,918 1,45,82,918 7,90,124 43,40,876 2.1 The assessee filed return of income for the year under

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan vs. Piramal Glass Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Asst. Cit-8(2)(1), Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcg 0093 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ronak Doshi &
Section 36(1)(ii)

interest on overdraft Assessee was entitled to deduction of interest on overdraft Assessee was entitled to deduction of interest on overdraft under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investment was under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investment was under Section 36(1

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1819/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Bank makes provision for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI norms. Out of the said provisions made, deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of eligible amount as prescribed (an amount not exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding ... exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances by the rural branches) under section 36(1)(viia). However, if no provision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) as per section 36

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1818/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Bank makes provision for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI norms. Out of the said provisions made, deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of eligible amount as prescribed (an amount not exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding ... exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances by the rural branches) under section 36(1)(viia). However, if no provision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) as per section 36

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Bank makes provision for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI norms. Out of the said provisions made, deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of eligible amount as prescribed (an amount not exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding ... exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances by the rural branches) under section 36(1)(viia). However, if no provision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) as per section 36

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1440/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Bank makes provision for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI norms. Out of the said provisions made, deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) to the extent of eligible amount as prescribed (an amount not exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding ... exceeding 8.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances by the rural branches) under section 36(1)(viia). However, if no provision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) as per section 36

M/S Raj Kumar Singh & Co., Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

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

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

conclusion that there was no cash surplus, then the effect of such finding on the question of allowability of deduction under Section 36(1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, would also be determined. Consequently, the impugned orders of the High Court and ITAT are set aside and the matter

Black Rock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

show any interest income in Profit & Loss Account and, therefore, the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure should have been made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act for advancing loans and advances to related parties without interest by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT further observed that from note ... current account. The Ld. AR submitted that these details were given to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the question of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act does not arise. The PCIT was not justified in holding that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

Revenue. 16. The next issue that came up for our consideration from additional ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is disallowance under Section 36(1)(va), in respect of belated payment of employee contribution to Provident Fund. The AO has disallowed the belated payment of Employees Contribution Provident Fund ... belated payment of Employees Contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due dates specified under respective statue is not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with 43B, read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme

Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1521/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1521/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd. ....…………….......…....………....Appellant 17/1C, Alipore Road, Niharika, Kolkata-700027. [Pan: Aafcm4800Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Company For Alleged Non-Compliance Of The Notices Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case Since He Did Not Adjudicate Each Of The Grounds Of Appeal The Facts For Which Were Available To Him In The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer & The Statement Of Facts Filed By The Appellant Assessee. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) On 9H January 2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,11,832 in the total income of the Appellant Company under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, although admittedly such amount as deposited within the due date of furnishing the return of income prescribed under section 139(1

Manekal Bhagavanji, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4) Non Corporate (Present), Kochi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 223/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmaneklal Bhagavanji The Income Tax Officer 8/1466, Gujarati Road Non-Corporate Ward 2(4) Vs. Mattancherry, Kochi 682002 Cr Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan: Aaefm3221B] Kochi 682014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed exparte order confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 36(1)(iii) deduction disallowance without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points

M/S.State Bank of India(Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 252/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

latter appeal ITA.No.252/ Coch./2017 for assessment year 2010-11 wherein it has raised the following substantive grounds : “1. Disallowance under section 36(1)(viii): 1.1. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of AO abating eligible deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) ignoring the method of accounting ... herein dated 16.12.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under : “2.3. I considered both the views expressed. As per section 36(1)(vili) of the Act, what is to be considered is the profit derived from the eligible business computed under the head 8 ITA.Nos