← 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)

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

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024

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

A R J Fireworks, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 443/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.443/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Arj Fireworks Ito बनाम/ Ward-1 184, Palaniandavarpuram Colony, Vs. Virudhunagar. Sivakasi-626 123. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapfa-4749-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mukundan(Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Mukundan(JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iv)

whose salary does not exceed Rs. 500 per month. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 476 (AP) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indocean Engineer (P.) Ltd. Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Provident fund - Contributions towards recognised provident fund - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether contributions by assessee-company directly ... disallowance-gratuity - Assessment year 1975-76 - Whether applicability of rule 103 will arise only when deduction has to be allowed in conformity with section 36(1) (v) but after introduction of section 40A (7) deduction has to be worked out solely under section 40A (7) - Held, yes Even

Subodh Kumar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ADIT CPC, Delhi

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

ITA 3293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1) (va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 403/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

transaction of intercorporate deposits and not the sales. Accordingly, the AO held that the conditions as specified under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have not been complied with and therefore he disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. On appeal ... income of ₹ 1,49,00,200.00 in the earlier year and therefore the same should be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 42. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. We heard the rival

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 402/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

transaction of intercorporate deposits and not the sales. Accordingly, the AO held that the conditions as specified under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have not been complied with and therefore he disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. On appeal ... income of ₹ 1,49,00,200.00 in the earlier year and therefore the same should be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 42. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. We heard the rival

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 401/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

transaction of intercorporate deposits and not the sales. Accordingly, the AO held that the conditions as specified under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have not been complied with and therefore he disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. On appeal ... income of ₹ 1,49,00,200.00 in the earlier year and therefore the same should be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 42. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. We heard the rival

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 400/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

transaction of intercorporate deposits and not the sales. Accordingly, the AO held that the conditions as specified under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have not been complied with and therefore he disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. On appeal ... income of ₹ 1,49,00,200.00 in the earlier year and therefore the same should be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 42. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. We heard the rival

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Cir. 1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 399/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 132(4)Section 68

transaction of intercorporate deposits and not the sales. Accordingly, the AO held that the conditions as specified under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have not been complied with and therefore he disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. On appeal ... income of ₹ 1,49,00,200.00 in the earlier year and therefore the same should be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 42. On the contrary, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. We heard the rival

Bit Corp Private Limited, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Bitcorp Private Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Dr.No.8-14-28, Tobacco Colony Income Tax Mangalagiri Road Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aadcb4080D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्रीदुव्वूरुआरएल रेड्डी, न्याधयकसदस्यएिंश्रीएसबालाकृष्णन, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Mangesh Vasant Joshi, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Thane

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

ITA 746/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, (SR.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 3,40,800 under Section 36(1)(iii). The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts ... question of law arises. 5. Tax appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.)” 6. The Ld.AR argued that the Ld.AO made an addition under section 36(1)(iii) related to notional interest on balance amount of the loan Rs.28,40,000/- @12% which works out to Rs.3,40,800/-. The Ld.AR

DCIT Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi

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

ITA 1847/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(xii)

vide order dated 23.11.2012 in ITA Nos. 1128 to 1130/DEL/2012 wherein the issue of applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(xii) of the Act in respect of expenses claimed by the assessee towards grant released to the institutions and royalty paid has been quite extensively deliberated by placing reliance

ITO, Ward 62(1), New Delhi vs. Shyam Pal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 1813/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of delayed payment of employees’ contributions beyond the stipulated time period prescribed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the ‘Act’) and expenditure disallowable under section ... 1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer–CPC by disallowing the employees’ contribution to Provident Fund & ESI of Rs.50,93,755/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act as the same was deposited after the stipulated time period. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed an application under section

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.K. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Doi, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

mentioned. From the tax audit report it is clear that there were no delays in deposit of such Provident Fund and provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been fully complied with. 11. It was also submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... audit report that there were no delays in deposit of such PF and the assessee is in complete compliance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va)of the Act. We find force in the submission of the ld. AR for the assessee that the judgement

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 76/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 75/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 74/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 73/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 72/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangali

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 71/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

Krantiagani Dr G D Bapu Lad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kundal vs. ACIT, Sangli

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 70/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned