← 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)

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

that if the assessee claims deduction of provision for doubtful debts, without any write-off of irrecoverable debt and it is contrary to section 36(1 )(vii) of the Act. Further, Vijaya Bank (supra) is not applicable in the case of the Assessee, as the said decision was rendered ... debited same to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans, doubtful debt qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) following Vijaya Bank (supra). This judgment was not considered in the earlier AY 2015-16 ITAT order. M/s. Asian Paints 41. Further

Dy CIT Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for

ITA 3063/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

that if the assessee claims deduction of provision for doubtful debts, without any write-off of irrecoverable debt and it is contrary to section 36(1 )(vii) of the Act. Further, Vijaya Bank (supra) is not applicable in the case of the Assessee, as the said decision was rendered ... debited same to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans, doubtful debt qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) following Vijaya Bank (supra). This judgment was not considered in the earlier AY 2015-16 ITAT order. 44 ITA No.2700/Mum/2023 and others

Dy CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints, Mumbai

ITA 2936/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 2, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

that if the assessee claims deduction of provision for doubtful debts, without any write-off of irrecoverable debt and it is contrary to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, Vijaya Bank (supra) is not applicable in the case of the Assessee, as the said decision was rendered ... debited same to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans, doubtful debt qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) following Vijaya Bank (supra). This judgment was not considered in the earlier AY 2015-16 ITAT order. 41. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2697/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

that if the assessee claims deduction of provision for doubtful debts, without any write-off of irrecoverable debt and it is contrary to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, Vijaya Bank (supra) is not applicable in the case of the Assessee, as the said decision was rendered ... debited same to profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced assets by reducing amount of unsecured loans, doubtful debt qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) following Vijaya Bank (supra). This judgment was not considered in the earlier AY 2015-16 ITAT order. 41. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme

Utsav Hospitality & Clubs Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9663/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (Vice President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the CTT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.42,61,218/- made under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, allegedly for the reason that there was no business expediency for advance to Capital Club (P) Ltd. 2.1 That on facts ... Supreme Court in Hero Cycles P. Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 is squarely applicable, hence no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was called for. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the ground either at or before the hearing

Diamour Jewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Krupali Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI is not deposited within the due dates under the relevant Act as mandated by the explanation in Section 36(1)(va), the same will not be allowable as a deduction. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel ... Court while deciding the instant issue was in the context of due dates prescribed under the relevant Act for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 7.4. The contention raised before us is that since the penal damages have been waived off by the EPF Organisation itself

Vindas Chemical Industries Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 157/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Vindas Chemical Industries Dcit-Acit 4(1), Private Limited, Indore बनाम 102, Prabhudeep Apartment, / Indapuri Colony, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aabcv1288P Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

only as mentioned in the grounds. Ld. AR submitted that the employer’s contribution is not hit by section 36(1)(va)/2(24)(ix); the same is allowable as a deduction provided the assessee has paid the same to PF/ESI Fund upto due date for filing of return

Joint Commossioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 19/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

allowable u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The Ld. A.R has submitted that the A.O has accordingly restricted the claim of Section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act to Rs. 28,95,57,768/- against the claim of Rs. 44,15,15,215/- after due application

DCIT-CC-7(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Arihant Premises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1602/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit-Cc-7(3), Vs Arihant Premises Private Limited Room No-655, Aayakar Bhavan, 412, Floor-4, Vardhaman Chamber Maharishi Karve Road, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Mumbai-400 020 Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaaca7260K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT….” Grounds 3 & 6: 8. The disallowance was made under section 36(1)(iii) amount to Rs.8,14,064/-. The assessee had given finance of Rs.4.90 crores to M/s Poonam Fast Food Pvt Ltd on 21/02/2013 for buying ... purposes of acquiring shares of M/s. Roselabs Finance Limited. The appellant also submitted that same ground in respect of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is already covered and decided in favour of the appellant by the predecessor CIT(A) in appellant's own case

R N Sahni, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 32(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above directions

ITA 1521/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: CIT(A) & again considering the said amount as income from house property resulting into double additions.3. The Id. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30985/- out of the total disallowance amounting to Rs.1893103/- u/s 43-B on account of unpaid taxes since the assessee has furnished all the bills/vouchers & copy of Tax Audit Report duly marked.

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43

books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year. The assessee is duly fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the IT Act. 3. On the other hand, Ld DR brought to our notice relevant findings of lower authorities and relied

M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of Ld

ITA 964/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Umedsingh Bhati & Shri AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr. DR
Section 249Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

DCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3– 2,44,896/- towards disallowance of depreciation, for a sum of Rs. 31,85,922/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and for a sum of Rs. 20,99,981/- towards disallowance of various expenses claimed by the assessee. In appeal

Gallagher Service Center LLP, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 693/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Gallagher Service Center Llp, Acit , Pune 401, A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Vs. Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aaqfg7417F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

learned DCIT, CPC in disallowing expenditure of Rs.1,06,15,630 in relation to employees‟ contribution to provident fund and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) even though the same has been paid before the prescribed due date under the respective statutory acts ... payment within prescribed due date considering section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and accordingly same should not be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds

Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1521/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1521/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Public School Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit/Income Tax Officer, 70, Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Road, Corporate Circle 1, Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabci6331A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Surat For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 16 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay As Well As Duly Notarized Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Affidavit & Upon Hearing The Ld. Dr, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee challenging the action of ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in treating employees’ PF and ESI contribution as income by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. We note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF and ESI contribution within

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Kheshtriya Gramin Bank vs. PCIT ITR-Balance Sheet), wherein,' Provision for standard assets' was mentioned at Rs.26,51,59,000/-, (b) As per section 36(1) (viia) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by (a) a scheduled bank [not being ... allowability of total sum of Rs.26,51,59,000/- which was earmarked by you as "Provisions for Standard Asset", as per Section 36(1) (viia) read with Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) As per CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008, it has been clearly laid down that provision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2325/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Laxmi Diamond Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Ew-200, G Block Bharat Diamond 903, Prathistha Bhavan, Old Course, Bandra Kurla Complex, Cgo Complex, M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Churchgate (E), Mumbai-400020 Pan-Aabcl1815G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane(CIT - DR)
Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D(3)

after the TP study, there is no adjustment made by the TPO and that the addition was made only under section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) of the Act under the domestic tax. 4. The Ld. DR relied on the impugned penalty order and argued vehemently. 4 Laxmi Diamond

Reliable Automotive Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4479/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Reliable Automotive Private Cit (A), Addl/ Jcit (A)-1 Limited Circle 15(3)(1), Room Plot No. 29, Sector 1, No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Shirwane Gaon, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400 706 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca9737D

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM

P vs. Multiplex (India) Ltd., Meerutvs.ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7697/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(vi)Section 80I

impugned order decided the appeal on merit. Before the CIT(A), there were two issues; namely, (i) the disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(vi) and (ii) the disallowance of deduction of Rs.4,62,485/- claimed under section 80IB(7A) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted ... disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.4,62,485/- under section 80IB(7A) of the Act relatable to the interest income and income on sale of the shop on the reasoning that neither capital gains on sale

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

books of accounts and not being deposited within the due dates specified under the relevant acts as given in Explanation-1 to section 36(1)(va) deduction u/s 36(1)(va) was not claimed thus on its subsequent accounting in the books of account including deposit with additional liability ... accounts on its receipt/recovery and not being deposited within the due dates specified under the relevant Acts as given in Explanation-1 to section 36(1) (va), accordingly deduction u/s.36(1)(va) was not claimed thus on its subsequent deposit after the due dates specified under the relevant Acts incurring