← 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)

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

ITA 251/COCH/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

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

Sankalp Recreation Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

they were incurred for legitimate business activities. The assessee also disputed the AO’s disallowance of employee contributions to PF & ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3.2. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO’s order, applying a 12% net profit rate on the unaccounted receipts ... that the disallowance should not be made because it was not based on any incriminating material. The CIT(A) held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp Recreation Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 569/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

they were incurred for legitimate business activities. The assessee also disputed the AO’s disallowance of employee contributions to PF & ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3.2. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO’s order, applying a 12% net profit rate on the unaccounted receipts ... that the disallowance should not be made because it was not based on any incriminating material. The CIT(A) held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings

ACIT 3(3)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the- addition of Rs.41,63,778/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee made huge interest free advances from interest bearing funds." 2 "Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,42,44,952/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income tax Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee made huge interest free advances from interest bearing funds." "Whether

ACIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the- addition of Rs.41,63,778/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee made huge interest free advances from interest bearing funds." 2 "Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,42,44,952/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income tax Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee made huge interest free advances from interest bearing funds." "Whether

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

from the issue involved in the above case. In the case of S.A. builder, the issue of contention was allowability of interest under section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT act w.r.t. advance given to a related company for business expediency. However, in the current case, issue is whether

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course Circle vs. The Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op Bank Limited, Bharuch

ITA 693/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs
Section 36(1)(viia)

Bharuch Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Asst.Year –2015-16 - 2– aggregate advances made by rural branches without appreciating the Explanation (ia) below section 36(1)(viia) of the Act? 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is justified ... assessee, a co-operative bank registered with relevant authorities, claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,88,40,841/- under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act for bad and doubtful debts. In response to inquiries about this deduction, the assessee submitted that as a co-operative bank

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Om Land Reality Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1572/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1572/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.24/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 The Dcit, M/S. Om Land Reality Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(2), बनाम 302, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Ahmedabad. Abhiship Complex Nr. Keshav Baug Party Plot, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaaco9406D ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Dr Assessee By : Ms Amoli Gusani, Ar

For Appellant: Ms Amoli Gusani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 45Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ , अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning the interest income. Scope of section 57(ii) is narrower than section 36[1]/37(1) of the Act. It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of RRPR Holding (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ... 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

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning the interest income. Scope of section 57(ii) is narrower than section 36[1]/37(1) of the Act. It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of RRPR Holding (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ... 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

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 263Section 90

assessee has written off bad debts of Rs. 19,12,96,10,120/- as irrecoverable in its profit and loss account. b. Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act provides for deduction of the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable ... irrecoverable which exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made and allowed under clause (viia) of section 36(1) of the Act. c. For the assessment year under reference i.e. A.Y. 2019-20, opening balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl. Jt. Dy. Asst. CIT Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2917/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, section 36(1) (va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) - which ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

account u/s.36(1)(viia). 3.7. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable to the depreciation on SRs of Rs. 36,57,40,426/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred ... erred in disallowing the non-rural debts written off by the Appellant bank, which are not covered by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). 4.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the bad debts claim by holding that deduction in respect of the bad debts actually written

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

account u/s.36(1)(viia). 3.7. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable to the depreciation on SRs of Rs. 36,57,40,426/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred ... erred in disallowing the non-rural debts written off by the Appellant bank, which are not covered by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). 4.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the bad debts claim by holding that deduction in respect of the bad debts actually written

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Paradise Infrastructure, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) The decision relating to section 37 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 decision relating to section ... that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency, if interest thereon is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii). The assessee borrowed funds from bank and advanced part of it to its sister concern (a subsidiary) as interest-free loan. The Assessing

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

Bench ‘A’ in the case of DCIT v/s Vidras India Ceramics (P.) Ltd. – [2021] 129 taxmann.com 320 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) [PB 84-89] Headnote - Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts (Write off) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics ... tiles, claimed provision made for doubtful debts - Assessing Officer disallowed same under explanation to clause (vii) of section 36(1) - Whether, since assessee-company has debited provision made in respect of doubtful debts to profit and loss account and also reduced same amount in balance sheet from sundry debtors/trade receivable

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

illegal :- It is submitted by the assessee company is that during the relevant assessment year 2015-16, the assessee had in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, claimed deduction for bad debts written off aggregating to Rs. 62,15,000/- viz(1) Bank guarantee invoked ... assessee company on 23/02/2015 (page 100-101 of paper book), It is further averred by the assessee company that the condition stipulated in Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is that the debt on part thereof should have been taken into account for computing income. In other words even

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank (2012) 349 ITR 482 (Bom) has held that the Assessing Officer having allowed assessee’s claim under section 36(1)(viii) in respect of fund based income, could not initiate reassessment proceeding by merely taking a view that income earned in non-fund business