Section 36(1)(i) — 15 judgments | BharatTax

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR JOLLY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

which has been later disallowed by the Assessing Officer mentioning that the appellant has utilized such loans for non business purposes. As per section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business or profession ... Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains', and this has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court. [Para

ANANTHAPURI HOSPITALS PVT LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPUIRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 867/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the interest of Rs.17,66,79,121/-invoking the provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act, applying average cost of debts to the amount of capital works-in-progress (CWIP), addition to fixed assets and capital advance, ignoring ... year had been financed borrowed funds and therefore interest cost proportionate to the same is liable to be disallowed under provision to section 36(1)(iii) r/s Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has not established the nexus between the borrowed funds and CWIP/fixed

AMI LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

matter, where it was held that in case payment is made against services provided by the directors, the disallowance cannot be made under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.2. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted that – 1. Shri Girish Chovatia is a qualified MBA (Marketing ... arrangement to avoid dividend distribution tax and Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 4 deduction cannot be allowed under section 36 (1)(ii) of the Act. He also concluded that the board resolution cannot be considered as evidence of extra service provided by the director

DCIT CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NANDANBALA COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesse is also dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One Bkc, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 Bkc, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavcs1575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: HM Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(ii)

Appellant has paid interest thereon. Funds were borrowed for business purpose only i.e. purchase of land. Appellant fulfills all the three conditions of section 36(1)(iii) meaning that interest cost is duly allowable u/s.36(1)(ii) of Act. c) Appellant was in the process of purchase of land ... No.1134/Mum/2023 CO 67/Mum/2023 DCIT 13(2)(2) Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Pvt. Ltd. unwarranted and the same qualifies to be allowed under section 36(1)(i)/section 37(1)" c) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gorwara Plastic & General Inds. (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ 329 has also

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

methodology provided under Rule 8D of the Rules as amended by Notification No. 50 1949( E) [F.NO.370142/7/2016-TPL]. 5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page 9 to 18 of the Final Assessment Order ... Strides Pharma Science Ltd. The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(i), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act, and in doing so have grossly erred: 5.1 In law in holding that equity investment

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)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing proportionate interest under section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That ... 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

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)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing proportionate interest under section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That ... 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

ACIT-2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) do not qualify as 'borrowing' for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?” Ground

ICICI BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) do not qualify as 'borrowing' for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?” Ground

M/S WAVELL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

JT. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WAVELL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority

MEGA CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 633/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mega Custodial Services Limited V. Dcit – Circle-10(2)(2) 301, Level-3, Ceejay House Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate, F-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaacm3508J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Navneet Chaudhary Department By : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Navneet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed detailed submissions for the purpose of clarity it is reproduced below: - 5 M/s. Mega Custodial Services Limited "Disallowance under section 36(1)(ii) of Rs 2.55.82.026/ 1. We reiterate what is mentioned in our Appeal. 2. It is submitted before your goodself that the learned assessing

“Section 36(1)(i)”