← 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 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4007/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) Ι.Τ

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4006/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) Ι.Τ

Superwell Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Moonlight Properties Private Limited, Mohali vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

ITA 216/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 203ASection 36(1)(iii)

interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It has been contended that the assessee adhered strictly to the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and it was justified in claiming the interest expenditure of Rs.5,00,97,515/- for the year under consideration ... whether the same had been given out of debit balance or credit balance in the bank account; that under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, it was the assessee's onus to substantiate that the borrowed funds had been utilized for business purposes during the year

Barbate Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.50/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Barbate Automotive India The Assistant Director Of Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax, Cpc, Income K.H.No.63/6, Arya Cars, S Tax Department, Bhandara Road, Kapsi, Bengaluru – 560500. Nagpur – 441202. Pan: Aadcb1189M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rachit Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Nfac]Dated 21.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Asst. Commissioner Of Barbate Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

Supreme Court on the issue of allowability of Employee’s Contribution is applicable from the date of the inception of the relevant section 36(1).Hence, respectfully the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Microsoft India (R&D) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

ITA nos.- 1483 & 1640/Del/2022 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I’: NEW

Microsoft India (R&D) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

ITA nos.- 1483 & 1640/Del/2022 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I’: NEW

Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 618/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

Seo Bridal Studio Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 617/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 310/CHANDI/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 309/CHANDI/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 308/CHANDI/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT-Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 307/CHANDI/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

already offered. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,048/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following additions: i) Addition of Rs. 6,13,202/- As per para ... survey. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,19,466/- on account of provisions section 36(1)(iii). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,73,458/- as per Annexure-VI a, page

Mangatrai, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 31/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Mangatrai, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, R/O.5-9-46, Basheerbagh, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad – 500063, Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Radha Krishna, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri B. Radha Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of PF and ESI as the dates of payments were not appearing in Form 3CD. The above said addition was made under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for not depositing the contributions received from employees towards PF and ESI before the due dates mentioned

M/S. Grt Jewellers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, . Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

towards said funds after the due date prescribed under respective Acts :-14-: ITA. No: 113/Chny/2024 cannot be allowed as deduction under provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue in light of their earlier decisions ... belated payment of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI made beyond the due dates specified in the respective Acts attracted the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that there is no error in the reasons given

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 754/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

u/s.143(3) on 13- 03-2013. The assessee has filed concise grounds on 28-11-2023 which read as under: - Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining the addition I disallowance of Rs.96,49,617/- made ... assessment out of interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking proper note of the information I 2. clarification set out in the Grounds of Appeal and Written Submissions

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 737/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

u/s.143(3) on 13- 03-2013. The assessee has filed concise grounds on 28-11-2023 which read as under: - Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining the addition I disallowance of Rs.96,49,617/- made ... assessment out of interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking proper note of the information I 2. clarification set out in the Grounds of Appeal and Written Submissions

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 730/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

u/s.143(3) on 13- 03-2013. The assessee has filed concise grounds on 28-11-2023 which read as under: - Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining the addition I disallowance of Rs.96,49,617/- made ... assessment out of interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking proper note of the information I 2. clarification set out in the Grounds of Appeal and Written Submissions

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Express Publications(Madurai) Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

u/s.143(3) on 13- 03-2013. The assessee has filed concise grounds on 28-11-2023 which read as under: - Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining the addition I disallowance of Rs.96,49,617/- made ... assessment out of interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking proper note of the information I 2. clarification set out in the Grounds of Appeal and Written Submissions

Sri. Panati Vinaykumar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 68/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Vinaykumar, Bengaluru Page 5 of 6 Employee PF Contribution payment in hands of assessee under provisions of Income Tax Act and held that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked