← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)167 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(ii) is CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (410 ITR 417), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(ii)

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court
486
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT
298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court
191
citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P
2 SCC 585 · 1981 · Reported
190
citing judgments

An Explanation to a statutory provision can either clarify an existing ambiguity in the main provision or add to and widen its scope.

CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale
124 ITR 391 · 1980 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act that widens the scope of the provision, rather than merely clarifying it, cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment periods prior to its effective date. Assessments must be made according to the law in force at the relevant time.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
131
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

CIT v. Goslino Mario
241 ITR 312 · 2000 · Supreme Court
119
citing judgments

The law applicable for an assessment year is that in force during that year, and an Explanation introduced with effect from a particular date does not retrospectively affect earlier assessment years unless expressly provided.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(ii)

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sagar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

therefore, payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the brought forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot ... that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal nor other authorities have examined whether the amount advanced

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 263/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

therefore, payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the brought forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot ... that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal nor other authorities have examined whether the amount advanced

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Jabalpur Hospital & Research Center, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 19/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Raj Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2018 sustained the disallowance to the extent of Rs.24,96,935/- made by the AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT the extent of Rs 24,96,935/- made by AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively

Ravesha Pigments Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi and AO (National Faceless Assessment Cenre, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraveshia Pigments Ltd, Vs. Nfeac, 11Th Floor Casablanca, Delhi. Gulmohar Cross Road No. 10, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7272E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhavin . J. Marfatia.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal. CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

that the Appellant has not provided the rationale behind arriving at such suo motu adjustment. 5.4 In disallowing the interest on borrowing under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the investments were made during the current/past years out of its own funds/ internal accruals

Makson Health Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/Accit-1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 35/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 36(1)(i)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Makson Healh Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/ACIT1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 34/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 36(1)(i)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni, Katni vs. J.P Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

therefore, payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the brought forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot ... that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal nor other authorities have examined whether the amount advanced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Katni, Katni vs. J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

therefore, payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the brought forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot ... that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In the present case, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal nor other authorities have examined whether the amount advanced

Gujral Design Plus Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4819/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshgujral Design Plus Overseas Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-10(2), 16, Feroz Gandhi Road, Lajpat New Delhi Nagar Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg2661A

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)

assessee company. This was stated to be paid out of profits of the assessee company. The ld AO invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act stated that this commission was paid in lieu of distribution of profits in the form of the dividend to the share ... 36(1)(ii) of the Act in subsequent years by the revenue. 8. At the outset, we find that the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act per se could not be made applicable. Provision of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act states whether any sum paid

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3711/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3042/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

cost of asset and not allowed as deduction Income. ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka Tax act also sustainable this in Section 36(1)(ii). The submission of the assessee is not accepted as the assessee has not received this sum in lieu of the capital asset. The asset

The New Vikash Co-Op. House Building Society Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1472/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] The New Vikash Co-Op. House Vs Ito, Building Society Ltd., Adv. Vijay Ward-Ii(4), Kumar Gupta, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004. Pan-Aaajt1595P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011

Lalita Kumari, Anta District Baran vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kanakia Gruhnirman Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND