← 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)

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the interest of Rs.17,66,79,121/-invoking the provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act, applying average cost of debts to the amount of capital works-in-progress (CWIP), addition to fixed assets and capital advance, ignoring ... year had been financed borrowed funds and therefore interest cost proportionate to the same is liable to be disallowed under provision to section 36(1)(iii) r/s Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has not established the nexus between the borrowed funds and CWIP/fixed

Adhaan Solution Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT-Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 922/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Udernani & Shri Rahul Y OzaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee, the AO passed an order under Section 143(3) on 14.12.2019, making the addition of Rs. 3,73,04,580/- under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed payment of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the AO disallowed the contributions, amounting ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the case and upheld the AO's order, by observing that the due dates mentioned in sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are distinct. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the appeal centered on whether the contributions, although made after the due date under

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23. The only other issue that remains for consideration is the issue raised ... appeal for AY 2012-13 & 2014-15 with regard to deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. The relevant extract of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Bhawan Mohan Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Bhawan Mohan Garg Circle – 32 (1) C-16, Green Park New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan No.Aahpg2084K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 195Section 40Section 40t

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from the parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii). In other words, the Tribunal held that loans were given for business purposes. Similarly, for assessment year 1993- 94, the Tribunal had taken the view ... business purposes and that interest paid thereon did not exceed 18/12 per cent per annum, the assessee was entitled to deductions under section 36(1)(iii), read with section 40(b)(iv) of the 1961 Act. 17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the assessment year 1995-96, apart

Makevale Acrylics Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC Bengaluru Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 566/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.566/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru बनाम/ 372, 373, 374, 1,2 Sankarda Present Jurisdiction - Bhadarwa Road The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), V/S. At Moxi, Tal.Savli, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara- 391 780 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcm 2737 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13/11/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction The Dcit, Circle-2(1)1A) Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

return was processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act on 29-09-2022 for a proposed adjustment of Rs.25,583/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, without disputing the alternative tax regime claim opted by the assessee. The Assessee accepted the adjustment of Rs.25

Navkar Petroleum, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 386/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

written off as bad debts to suppress the Revenue. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of bad debts claimed by the assessee under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 9,48,047/- to the income of the assessee. 3.2 The Assessing Officer also

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 231/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

The Jt.CIT, (OSD)Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 223/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 166/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1219/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(vii) should not be first adjusted with the provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) in view the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) r.w.s. 36(1 3.1 The assessee bank relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision that Section 36(1)(viia ... 36(1)(vii) without adjusting the same against the provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). It contended that insertion of explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(vii) has not altered the proposition of law as it existed prior to ITA No.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

1)(vii) of the Act when in facts assessee is claiming deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act and first provision to section 36(1)(vii) restricts the deduction of the same. 3. "Whether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble ITAT ... allowing provision on standard assets of Rs. 41.36 cr. when in fact standard assets are neither bad not doubtful as required by section 36(1) (viia) of the Act." 4 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

1)(vii) of the Act when in facts assessee is claiming deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act and first provision to section 36(1)(vii) restricts the deduction of the same. 3. "Whether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble ITAT ... allowing provision on standard assets of Rs. 41.36 cr. when in fact standard assets are neither bad not doubtful as required by section 36(1) (viia) of the Act." 4 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case und in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

total interest expenses debited in the P&L account, a sum of Rs.2,12,94,836/- was capitalized towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The addition as made by the AO was upheld ... interest attributable to the same on proportionate basis amounting to Rs.15,11,66,895/-, which accordingly was disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 63. The ld.CIT(A), however, noted that interest free funds owned by the assessee was much more than the interest free advances

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited