← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)126 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(v) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(v)

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)(v)

DCIT-4(1), Indore vs. Maral Overseas Ltd, Khargone

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/IND/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 40A(9)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault ... disputed by the authorities below as well as the learned DR appeared before us. The copy of the application for the approval under section 36(1)(v) of the Act is placed on pages 41-45 of the paper book. At this stage the question arises, the assessee

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

contribution towards recognized provident fund is to be allowed as deduction subject to such condition as the Board may prescribe. Whereas, Section 36(1)(v) of the Act says any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund ... allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1)(iv) Section 36(1)(v) is not subject to any condition. 39. According of approval for recognized provident fund and gratuity fund are provided under Part-A and Part-B of the 4th Schedule to the Income Tax Act. While Rule-4 under

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

contribution towards recognized provident fund is to be allowed as deduction subject to such condition as the Board may prescribe. Whereas, Section 36(1)(v) of the Act says any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund ... allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1)(iv) Section 36(1)(v) is not subject to any condition. 39. According of approval for recognized provident fund and gratuity fund are provided under Part-A and Part-B of the 4th Schedule to the Income Tax Act. While Rule-4 under

The Bank Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 362/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)Section 83

ground that the amount was not deposited in the recognized Provident Fund complying the provisions of section 40A(9) read with section 36(1)(v) of the Act, while the assessee submitted that the Bank was incorporated under West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act and as per section 83 of West

Flint Power Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5642/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Flint Power Tools (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Plot Nos. 594, 595, Central Circle-1, Sector 8 Imt Manesar, Faridabad-I, New-1 Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Aadcn0078K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 37

representing the employees contribution to provident fund by invoking the provisions contained in section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(v)(a) of the Act. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

About amount paid in gratuity fund amounting to Rs. 11,50,00,000/- allowable u/s 36(1)(v) as under: “Under section 36(1)(v) of the Act, any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund created

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Unistar Biotech Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5052/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5052/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Unistar Biotech Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, E-13, Third Floor, Plot No. 3, Lsc, Ward-27(1), Ghazipur, Delhi-110096 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu2467P Assessee By: Sh. Narender Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

deduction and was already disallowed in the computation. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the error in classification between section 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) was purely clerical and had no bearing on the actual taxable income reported. 2 Unistar Biotech Ltd. 3. That the appellant

ACIT, Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Western India Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4211/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Pico Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest Of M/S Income Tax-8(3)(2), Western India Garments Private Mumbai Limited ) 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Vs. Compound, Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Western India Garments Tax - 8(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Compound, Vs. Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. & Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. Ay 2014-15 Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056675304(1), Dated 29.09.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Dcit, Circle - 8(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,52,543/- Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Rules Over & Above The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,02,185/- Made By The Appellant. 2. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016 Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Person. 3. The Ld. Ao, Has Erred In The Levying Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

crores In this regard hither to our written submissions filed vide letter dated 07-11- 2016 we hereby submit as follows  Section 36(1)(v) provides as follows “The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein in computing ... section 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) has held in TRF Ltd v CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391 (SC) as follows “Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Bad debts Assessment years 1990-91 1993-94 and 1994-95 - Whether after 1

Pico Capital Private Limited (Successor in Interest of M/S Western India Garments Private Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4007/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Pico Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest Of M/S Income Tax-8(3)(2), Western India Garments Private Mumbai Limited ) 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Vs. Compound, Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Western India Garments Tax - 8(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Compound, Vs. Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. & Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. Ay 2014-15 Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056675304(1), Dated 29.09.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Dcit, Circle - 8(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,52,543/- Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Rules Over & Above The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,02,185/- Made By The Appellant. 2. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016 Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Person. 3. The Ld. Ao, Has Erred In The Levying Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

crores In this regard hither to our written submissions filed vide letter dated 07-11- 2016 we hereby submit as follows  Section 36(1)(v) provides as follows “The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein in computing ... section 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) has held in TRF Ltd v CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391 (SC) as follows “Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Bad debts Assessment years 1990-91 1993-94 and 1994-95 - Whether after 1

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

M/S Beeaar Autowheels India Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 282/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ground and did not lay down the correct law. He also referred to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(v)(a) and Section 43B of the Act, which he pointed out, were clarificatory in nature and Page 4 of 10 thereafter relying upon them

Salt Lake Service Station, Kolkata vs. DCIT, 49(1), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69A

four additions on account of cash deposited during demonetisation period under Section 69A of the Act (Rs. 6,06,52,500/-), disallowance under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act (Rs. 22,654/-), disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (Rs. 54,000/-) and disallowance under Section

DCIT, Circle-1, Durgapur vs. Debeanjana Hard Coke Private Limited, Hetedoba

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A