← 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)

Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 781/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

Instronics Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6643/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usinstronics Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (1), 806, Devika Tower – 6, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aaaci0163R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Order : 05.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-4, New Delhi Dated 24.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provision Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld Ao U/S 143(3) Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Wrong On Facts. The Addition Sustained Is Unjust, Unlawful & Arbitrary & Are Made Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provisions Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Bad Debts Claimed Of Rs.53,11,956/- Ignoring The Fact That The Said Amount Is Irrecoverable & Eligible To Claim As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Vii) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Before ld. CIT (A), assessee pressed hard on the documents submitted on record and submitted that all the conditions of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) have been 4 fulfilled, hence the claim should be allowed. Considering the submissions

Ram Awadh Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Prcit, Central-2, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4130/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Awadh Sharma Vs. Pr. Cit D-153, Pinnacle Dlr, Phase- Central-2 5, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No.Bkbps6630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. P.N. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

revisional authority concluded that the AO has not examined the issue of bad debts of Rs. 1 crore claimed without fulfilling conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36 (2) of the Act. It was concluded that assessee was not doing any business activity during the year under

Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

unrelated parties for business purposes; and that therefore, under any circumstances, no notional interest on advances to related parties can be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 26. The ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, has sought to place strong reliance on the impugned order ... unrelated parties was of Rs.30.39 crore. The assessing officer made a notional disallowance of Rs.14,22,16,574/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Out of this amount, interest of Rs.96,07,216/- stood already disallowed by the assessee itself. Accordingly, the balance

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee was in the nature of interest as defined u/s 2(28 A) of the Income Tax Act and was also hit by Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act in the case of assessee. Accordingly, expenditure of Rs. 52,58,106/- was disallowed by the AO and penalty

Ayisha Firdose, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 Smt. Ayisha Firdose, Vs. Ito, No.208, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Ward – 5(3)(1), Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Akxpa 8709 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in not allowing an amount of Rs.42,73,043/- as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act; 7. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the employer ... Processing Centre (CPC) vide intimation dated 01.12.2022. In the said intimation, addition was made by disallowing a sum of Rs.42,73,043/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, assessee fled appeal before First Appellate Authority

Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 04, New Delhi

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

ITA 3109/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, 32/7, Samalka, Nh 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaci9385B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Dated 13.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Disallowance Of ‘Project Pending Capitalization Written Off’ Expenses, Amounting To Rs.7,71,40,000/- & Treating These Expenses To Be Of Capital Nature. 2. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.5,40,62,940/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Revised Ground). 3. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.9,61,305/- On Account Of Claim Of Roc Fee Under Section 35D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .”

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

acquire a controlling 8 stake in sister concern which was also engaged in real estate business, deduction claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(iii) could not be disallowed on account of said advance of loan. 12. Honourable Delhi high court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reebok India

Napc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.598/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Napc Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1A, Royal Court, First Floor, Income Tax, No.41, Venkatnarayana Road, Central Circle 2(1) T. Nagar, Chennai Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaccn 3625P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

1), CPC has already been made disallowance of Rs.2,02,67,165/- out of Rs.2,06,27,491/- u/s 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.2,02,67,165/- once again in assessment order u/s 143(3) is amount to double ... restrict the disallowance to Rs.3,60,326/- and also delete the disallowance of Rs.2,02,67,165/- u/s 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.598/CHNY/2024 for assessment year 2018-2019 is partly allowed. Order pronounced

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 819/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 15JSection 36(1)(va)Section 80J

Center/ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in disallowing the Employee Contribution of Rs. 97,22,957, under Section 36(1)(va), w.r.t PF/ESI, when the same was deposited by the assessee firm, before the due date of filing the return of income. The action ... material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee has raised the issue of disallowance of Rs. 97,22,957/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. This disallowance has been made by CPC u/s 143(1) (a)(iv) based on the details provided

ACIT 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shriram Chits Maharastra Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Raghav MenonFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

credit of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized. Hence, Section 36(1)(iii) of the facility which has not been utilized. Hence, Section 36(1)(iii) of the facility which has not been utilized. Hence, Section 36(1 ... there must be a real borrowing. lender and accordingly there must be a real borrowing. 9. Unlike section 2(28A), clause (iii) of section 36(1) does not use the 9. Unlike section 2(28A), clause (iii) of section 36(1) does not use the 9. Unlike section

ITO, Ward, Palampur vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kangra

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43Section 43D

without 2. appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, in making the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,59,926/- on account of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act' 1961. The disallowance shall be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or delete

ITO, Ward, Palampur vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kangra

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/CHANDI/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43Section 43D

without 2. appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, in making the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,59,926/- on account of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act' 1961. The disallowance shall be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or delete

Vpssr Facilities, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3711/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A) When Discussed The Same By Applying The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit-1, In Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 & Ors.

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

Income Tax-l, in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2833 OF 2016 and others, rendered on 12 October, 2022. After considering the legislative history of Section 36(1) (va) and 43B. the amendments brought in over the years and the various interpretations adopted by different courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... employees' contribution to PF/ESI since it is money held in trust and has to be deposited within the due dates as prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, as evident from the concluding part of the decision is extracted herein: "51. The analysis of the various judgments cited

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6191/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

conclusion would be that the investments in group companies were out of the own funds. Therefore, no disallowance could have been made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He further submitted that identical disallowances made in the 3 | P a g e ITA No.5552/Del/2018 & 6191/Del/2018 ... appeals for other assessment years decided by the Tribunal. That being the factual position on record, we delete the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. This ground is allowed. 8. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs.62,53,675/- claimed towards cost

Escorts Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5552/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

conclusion would be that the investments in group companies were out of the own funds. Therefore, no disallowance could have been made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. He further submitted that identical disallowances made in the 3 | P a g e ITA No.5552/Del/2018 & 6191/Del/2018 ... appeals for other assessment years decided by the Tribunal. That being the factual position on record, we delete the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. This ground is allowed. 8. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs.62,53,675/- claimed towards cost

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

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

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

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

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

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

Ravi Bansilal Darira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 48/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

declared by the assessee by filing his return of income on 29.11.2014 and also made the disallowance of Rs.23,79,309/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the pretext that interest bearing funds were not used for the purpose of business. 3. Though the assessee challenged

Bajaj Travels, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 43(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 336/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

addition / disallowance can be made. He further added that this issue has been examined in the Finance Act, 2021 and the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B of the Act have been amended to this extent by inserting the explanation -2 whereby it is clarified ... record. The disallowance of Page 5 of 9 ITA No.-336/Del/2024 Bajaj Travels 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