← 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)

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 69/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 313/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.313/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Secunderabad Hotels (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics6896B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 436

further been upheld by the Horible ITAT, Hyderabad that the amendment to section 436 as well as section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and not retrospective in nature. As the Assessee has admittedly paid the employee contribution to PE &ESI before ... grace period. Subject to above discussion and in view of the CBDT circular No. 22/2015, in the light of the interpretation of section 36(1)(va) made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) and the decision of various ITAT regarding applicability

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 163/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

erred in not fairly appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making the additions without considering the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

erred in not fairly appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making the additions without considering the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income

Rapid Care Transcription Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Rapid Care Transcription Pvt Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.21/41, Vlv Complex, Little Mount, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai. Mount Road, Saidapet S.O(Chennai), Saidapet, Chennai-15. [Pan: Aabcr3254M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 43B

being a procedural provision, it shall not take away the right confirmed in section 37 r.w.s 40A(7) and section 36(1)(v) of the Act…”. Accordingly, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file

C S Manjunath, Tumakuru vs. Income-Tax Officer, War-1 & Tps, Tumkur

ITA 171/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

Clause 20(b) of tax audit report [i.e., Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)] is not correct. Instead of mentioning only the employees contribution part, audit report has mentioned the total contribution amount (i.e, both employer and employees contribution

Anoop Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3733/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaranoop Singh, Vs. Ito, 2097, Parvatia Colony, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bmaps2771R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) of the Act would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana

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

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee’s appeal is allowed. 16. As regards ground no.3.1 related to disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the same is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Limited vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com

M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee’s appeal is allowed. 16. As regards ground no.3.1 related to disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the same is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Limited vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com

Chededeepu Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Reddy, AR appeared for Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37

against the assessee, held that,- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 3510/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee amounting to Rs. 12,35,979/- which the assessee has duly disclosed in subsequent assessment year and therefore provisions of section 36(1)(iti) are not attracted. However the A.O. rejected assessee's contention and added Interest of Rs. 13,08,000/- on the ground that there ... creditors, clearly no interest expenditure has been incurred for making the same and, therefore, no question of allowability/disallowability of the same arises under section 36(1)(iti) of the Act, as has been held by the P&H High Court in the case of Bright Enterprises

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad (supra), had set aside the view expressed by the CIT(A) that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against the provisions allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. The relevant ... double deduction. In our view, both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have committed fundamental error by mixing up provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). While 36(1)(vii) speaks of actual write off of bad debts in the books of account, section 36(1

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad (supra), had set aside the view expressed by the CIT(A) that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against the provisions allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. The relevant ... double deduction. In our view, both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have committed fundamental error by mixing up provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). While 36(1)(vii) speaks of actual write off of bad debts in the books of account, section 36(1

Intarvo Technologies .Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with consequence to follow as above

ITA 3588/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Intarvo Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ward 12(2), Regency Tower, C-69, New Delhi Sec.58, Noida (Up) Pin: 201 307 Pan: Aabcr7753B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 58

advances to suppliers written off and inventory written off pertaining to previous years and an addition was made of Rs.2,54,310 under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act for interest free loans without business expediency. 6. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had partly allowed the appeal of assessee for which

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

beyond the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) 1.1 The A.O., C.P.C., Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to make the addition on account of Section 36(1)(va) as the same cannot be given effect by way of intimation u/s 143(1). Reliance is placed on following decisions, (all of which, except last ... ITAT-2022(Delhi)-O] h) Garg Head Centre & Nursing Home P Ltd vs ACIT, ITA No. 1700/DeV2022 1.2 Invalid invocation of Section 36(1)(va) : The AO, has invoked section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

beyond the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) 1.1 The A.O., C.P.C., Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to make the addition on account of Section 36(1)(va) as the same cannot be given effect by way of intimation u/s 143(1). Reliance is placed on following decisions, (all of which, except last ... ITAT-2022(Delhi)-O] h) Garg Head Centre & Nursing Home P Ltd vs ACIT, ITA No. 1700/DeV2022 1.2 Invalid invocation of Section 36(1)(va) : The AO, has invoked section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

involved in making investments in ventures and companies promoted by it. According to the Assessing Officer, by claiming deduction for 4 interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the Appellant had indirectly admitted that entire interest expenditure was related to borrowing which had resulted in investment. Therefore ... Year 2005-06, we find that the Assessing Officer had made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. No disallowance was made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the context of Section 36(1

Stellar Refractories Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution to Provident Fund/ ESIC within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is outside the purview and scope of adjustments as envisaged u/s 143(1)(a)(iv). The action of the learned authorities is illegal ... Refractories Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.420/Nag./2022 (i) PCIT Vs. Pepsico India Holding (P.) Ltd [2023] (156 taxmann.com 25 Delhi) dated 5-9-2023 Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Employee's contribution (General) - Whether where deposit of employee's contribution towards provident fund

M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen.)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

employees’ contribution to PF/ESI before the prescribed due date under the relevant statue. Against the said intimation and the disallowance so made under section 36(1)(va) r.w. s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ... account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees’ contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1

C.M.D. Ratnakar Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

investments in equity instruments of various companies cannot be treated in isolation with business of the assessee for the purpose of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. The AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the financial statements ... paid on borrowed capital to the extent of diversion of funds for non-business purpose cannot be allowed as deduction in terms of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, taking into account interest cost debited to profit and loss account, he has worked out average rate of interest