← All Phrases

“Section 34(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)355 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(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. 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.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.
323 ITR 518 · 2010 · High Court
470
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), during the year under consideration.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)

G R Minerals and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 76/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Jharna Jaiswal, Raipur vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 74/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Nanesh Projects, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 64/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

M/S. Prentia Constructions, Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur

ITA 62/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

M/S. Prenita Constructions, Jagdalpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 58/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Sankalp Realities, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 103/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Kinger Agrico Private Limited, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 102/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

N.R. Wires Private Limited, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bhilai

ITA 67/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Mesers Vicon Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assisttant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(1), Raipur

ITA 194/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Mesers Sky Automobiles, Raipur (Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 149/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Shri Shri Ranveer Singh Vidhuri, Raipur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2(1), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 304/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Arun Waman Koli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniroshan Hospital Cpc 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bangaluru Vs. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2983/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2982/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2981/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning

Sanjay Suganchand Lodha, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

ITA 56/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Asst. Director Of Income Lodha, Tax, Cpc Lodha Estate, Centralized Processing Behind Mittal Industrial Vs. Centre, Estate Building No.5, Income Tax Department, Marol Naka, Bengaluru-560 500 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaapl7043G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Shri Sanjay Suganchand Lodha 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning. On the application

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

doubt that, as the assessee had already filed a voluntary return, the notice under filed a voluntary return, the notice under section 34(1)(a) section 34(1)(a) was wrongly issued and the proceedings of assessment which wrongly issued and the proceedings of assessment which wrongly issued