← 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)

Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assessement Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 951/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234A

ITA No.951/Bang/2023 Mr. Shanmugam Ravi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee’s return of income made the adjustment of ` 50,040, in the return of income on account of deemed income under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24)(x) of the Act for the late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC on the ground ... prescribed due date as per the governing statutes and deposited late in the light of the provisions of section 224)(x) r/w section 36(1)(va) of the Act by relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form no.3CD. 11. The learned CIT(A), relying upon certain judicial

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee’s return of income made the adjustment of ` 50,040, in the return of income on account of deemed income under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24)(x) of the Act for the late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC on the ground ... prescribed due date as per the governing statutes and deposited late in the light of the provisions of section 224)(x) r/w section 36(1)(va) of the Act by relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form no.3CD. 11. The learned CIT(A), relying upon certain judicial

Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 613/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd…………………………………...………....Appellant 53, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, West Bengal – 700020. [Pan: Aacca7232K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Kr. Varma, 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 : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 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 02.02.2024 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. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Erred In Making Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposits Of Pf. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Ought Not To Have Made Any Disallowance In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf The Same Having Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of The Return Of Income. 3. For That The Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf Was Wrong & Uncalled For. 4. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of A.O.”

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made by the Assessing Officer on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund (‘PF’) and Employees State Insurance (‘ESI’) by invoking section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the deposits towards PF and ESI totalling to Rs.85

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Bonnie Debbarma, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxmann.com 178 (SC), dealing with this issue has settled down the controversy deciding in favour of the revenue holding that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is a must to claim deduction and provisions of Section 43B of the Act cannot be applied on employees

Indira Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4454/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran S. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(2)

that the Appellant has also not placed before us documents/details showing that amount written-off as bad debt and claimed as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(ii) of the Act was offered to tax as income in any of the preceding assessment years. Therefore, keeping

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

ITA 2232/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J., Ld. DR
Section 14Section 144CSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

appellant in respect of capital borrowed by the appellant for the purpose of its business hence claimed by the appellant as deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1.2 Without prejudice generality the Appellant submits that the learned AO-DRP, not having controverted the evidence on record ... other purposes of the Appellant's business and (c) That, accordingly, the Interest of Rs. 2, 01, 61,000/- was allowable under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 1.4 Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the Appellant submits that, in making their determinations in respect of the disallowance under

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

dated 5 August 2015 (Bombay High Court) (e) Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 183 (Bombay) Allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act even when the company is not in the money lending business

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

dated 5 August 2015 (Bombay High Court) (e) Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 183 (Bombay) Allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act even when the company is not in the money lending business

Sh. Aman Seth, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

assessment proceedings and it is not for an assessment to be made on agreed basis. Therefore disallowance of Rs. 8,61,473/- under section 36(1)(iii) made by Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for and may be deleted ... vehemently argued the case on merits and interalia contended that addition of Rs. 8,61,473/- on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is bad in law and illegal and ought to be deleted as in the books of account assessee has shown advances for different

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Pcit, 72, Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaace 1687 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri M.Karunakaran, Adv. : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

dispute is as under: 2. Please state whether i) late payment of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) as per Col. 20(b) of Form 3CD, ii) payment of gratuity not allowable under section

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

ITA 4798/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri / Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(iii)

under: (i) Adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee to Afcons Construction Mideast LLC – Ground No. 1 to 4 (ii) Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) in respect of loans to Afcons Pauling JV, Afcons Strabag AG, and Afcons Gunanusa JV – Ground Nos. 5 & 6. (iii) Disallowance of depreciation ... made in assessee's case towards corporate guarantee. These grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed accordingly. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) in respect of loans to Afcons Pauling JV, Afcons Strabag AG, and Afcons Gunanusa JV – Ground Nos. 5&6. 11. On perusal of Schedules

M/S Vora Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 798/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2016-17 M/S. Vora Financial Services Private Limited, 081, 806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Perin Nariman St.Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan:Aaacv-1975-E - Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 - Respondent- Appellant By : Shri K.Gopal/Ms.Neha Praranjpe Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal/Ms.Neha PraranjpeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 14Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

relates to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised two issues, viz., (a) disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and (b) disallowance made under section 14 A of the act. At the time of hearing, the learned AR did not press

Krishna Palace Residency Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4126/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivram a/w Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (Addl.CIT) SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal thereby the disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 54,84,478/- and loan processing fee of Rs. 3,00,400/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as the Ld. Assessing Officer had allowed the interest as an allowable deduction. 2. Without prejudice to the above ... erred in making the disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 54,84,478/- and loan processing fee of Rs. 3,00,400/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as the proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant. - ' 3. Without prejudice to the above, the amount

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

facts and circumstances of the case. 3) The appellant denies herself to be liable to the disallowances of Rs. 23,03,258/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intimation issued ... wages. The assessee deposited the employees contribution before filing return of income. Therefore section 43(b) will apply before the amendment to section 36(1)(va). He further submitted that the due date for remitting employees contribution should be considered from the actual date of payment of salary/wages. However

M/S Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Nawanshahar vs. Additinal/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. C.It, ITO, Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 102/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 144

partly allowed in light of aforesaid direction. 11. In Ground No. 8 to 10, the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure of borrowed fund utilization for capital expansion project. 12. During the course of hearing ... paid on loan of Rs.1203.52 million. The AO observed that no part of expenditure was capitalized by the assessee under proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering submissions of assessee the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proportionately capitalized interest thereby making addition of Rs.4

Zodiac Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 4754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

High Court is correct in holding that interest amount being interest referable to funds given to subsidiaries is allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') when the interest would not have been payable to banks, if funds were

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3031/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The next issue that arises for our consideration pertains to deletion of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya ITA no.3004/Mum/2023 14. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During ... created of interest-bearing funds and non-interest bearing funds. Accordingly, the AO computed the disallowance of Rs.2,57,43,893 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue by following the decision

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The next issue that arises for our consideration pertains to deletion of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya ITA no.3004/Mum/2023 14. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During ... created of interest-bearing funds and non-interest bearing funds. Accordingly, the AO computed the disallowance of Rs.2,57,43,893 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue by following the decision