← 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)

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

case of DCIT v. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Limited (ITA No.5059/Mum/2003), held premium paid on redemption of debentures to be allowable under Section 36(1)(iii)/37 of the Act even though the same was debited to share premium reserve in the books of accounts. (g) Though the order

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

supposed to be capitalized. The AO had disallowed the interest expenses considering that same were not business expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because assessee was showing slaughterhouse work in progress in the assets. Lone for the construction of slaughterhouse WIP had been taken and the interest ... Delhi) where it was laid down that interest paid on borrowed fund for mere extension of existing business, is allowable as deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. The AR pointed out that this case has been affirmed by the Hon’ble SC and reported

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

supposed to be capitalized. The AO had disallowed the interest expenses considering that same were not business expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because assessee was showing slaughterhouse work in progress in the assets. Lone for the construction of slaughterhouse WIP had been taken and the interest ... Delhi) where it was laid down that interest paid on borrowed fund for mere extension of existing business, is allowable as deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. The AR pointed out that this case has been affirmed by the Hon’ble SC and reported

Neelkanth Co Operative Bank Limited, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Solapur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1380/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

this regard, the contention of the AO in the assessment order, submissions of the appellant during appellate proceedings and relevant provisions under section 36(1)(viia) are carefully considered. The fact is that the appellant in his books of accounts has made provision for bad and doubtful debts at Rs.5 ... Similar issue has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and held as under: "A bare perusal of section 36(1)(viia) as applicable to assessment year 1985-86 shows that the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) is in respect of the provision

Kailash Gulabchand Liladiya, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 254/NAG/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

fact that, loan processing charges of Rs.4,28,202/- was incurred post obtaining possession of the shop premises and hence, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable. 5. The assessee craves leave to add or amend any other ground of appeal, if required.” 3. The assessee vehemently argued ... light of the above stated pleadings that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and in facts in invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,28,202/-. He has further inviting my addition to the assessee’s application seeking to place on record additional evidence

Narender Singh, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 36(1)(va)

Centre (CPC) noticed that employees’ contributions to PF and ESI were not paid within the due date as provided under Explanation -1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, the deduction claimed was disallowed. Assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before ... Income Tax, in ITA No. 3829/Del/2023 for AY: 2020-21, has held that the due date in terms of Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) has to be reckoned from the actual date of disbursement of salary irrespective of the month to which such salary relates. The observations

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

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

ITA 1305/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & 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

Sanjaybhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

basis. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 3 of 4 Rs.4,91,871/- towards the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance under Section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,71,576/- 4. Being aggrieved

Narender Singh Narwal, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3829/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 36(1)(va)

paid within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, disallowed the deduction claimed on account of such payment invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) read with its Explanations. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance by filing an appeal ... considered rival submissions, we find, limited submission of the assessee is to the effect that the due date as per Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be construed with reference to the actual date of disbursement of 3 | P a g e salary

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

added to the income of the assessee. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has failed to deposit TDS relating to certain expenses made during the year

Shrijeet Finance P Ltd, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 68

ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said addition. 4.1 Before us, the ld.AR filed additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that Finance Act, 2016 has introduced section 36(1)(viia)(d) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. As per said provision, NBFC’s 6 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A] are allowed to make provision for bad and doubtful ... perusal of the assessment order and ld.CIT(A)’s order, it is observed that both these authorities have not considered the section 36(1)(viia)(d) introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The relevant part of the Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2016 is reproduced here as under : “Considering the fact that

Shah Construction Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

assessed income of INR 10,06,81,491/- after making disallowance of interest of INR 7,94,69,285/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance of expenditure of INR 2,12,12,206/- on the ground that the business of the Appellant has been discontinued ... declined to grant any relief on merits. Thus, confirming the disallowance of interest of INR 7,94,69,285/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and disallowance of expenditure of INR 2,12,12,206/- made by the Assessing Officer vide common order, dated 18/01/2023. 5. Being aggrieved

Micropoint Computers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

Assessing Officer erred in disallowing bonus of Rs. 1,92,00,000/- paid to 2 Directors under Micropoint Computers Pvt. Ltd. section 36(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 by arbitrarily rejecting the fact that a. Directors have already paid taxes on the said bonus and thus this ... them. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to justify the allowability of bonus paid of Rs.1,92,00,000, as per provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that both the aforesaid directors are the promoter directors holding 49.77% and 47.23% of equity

Jmj Ganpatiji Maharaja Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Asrani Inns and Resorts Pvt Ltd), Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 3011/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
Section 36(1)(vii)

claimed as written off in the profit and loss account. Further the assessee could not establish the claim as per the provisions under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in the current financial year and the amount

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the interest under Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to the tune of INK 3,84,38,821 on the loan taken from Yes Bank ... statistical purpose with similar directions as given in ITA No. 1709/MUM/2023. 24. The Ground No. 6 relates to the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the tune of ₹.3,84,38,821/-. The underlying facts in the issue are that, the assessee had borrowed

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 23

Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the interest under Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to the tune of INK 3,84,38,821 on the loan taken from Yes Bank ... statistical purpose with similar directions as given in ITA No. 1709/MUM/2023. 24. The Ground No. 6 relates to the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the tune of ₹.3,84,38,821/-. The underlying facts in the issue are that, the assessee had borrowed

Shashank Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3098/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the employees contribution to PF and ESI not deposited within

Amitkumar S. Solanki, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Godhra

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

reported figure as the details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act was to be reported in column 20(b) of the tax audit report. According to the assesse the outstanding employees’ contribution of PF & ESI for March

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

issue relates to the disallowance of interest found to be not incurred for the business purpose in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in all to Rs.1,34,22,838/-. 62. The impugned disallowance was made with respect to loans & advances given by the assessee ... view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,34,22,838/-. Ground of appeal No.7 is dismissed. 66. Ground no.8 and 9 of the Revenue

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

issue relates to the disallowance of interest found to be not incurred for the business purpose in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in all to Rs.1,34,22,838/-. 62. The impugned disallowance was made with respect to loans & advances given by the assessee ... view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,34,22,838/-. Ground of appeal No.7 is dismissed. 66. Ground no.8 and 9 of the Revenue