← All Phrases

“Section 194(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 194Section 194(1)(b)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 194(1)(b) is CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 194(1)(b)

CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
53 ITR 140 · 1964 · Supreme Court
201
citing judgments

The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than "for the purpose of earning profits" and encompasses expenditures made for commercial expediency, business preservation, administration, and modernization.

Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT
215 ITR 582 · 1995 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used for purposes not directly related to the assessee's immediate business, such as providing interest-free advances or investing in a subsidiary's shares, is not deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) due to a restrictive interpretation of "for the purposes of business."

Judgments citing Section 194(1)(b)

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Pratik International Infratech Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2539/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 148Section 194(1)(b)Section 194C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pratik International Infratech Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2538/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 148Section 194(1)(b)Section 194C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Profit and Loss Account as ‘Revenue from Operations’. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that chart showing details of TDS under Section 194(1)(b) of the Act and details of rent earned by the Appellant as per Form 26AS and rent offered by the Appellant

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Profit and Loss Account as ‘Revenue from Operations’. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that chart showing details of TDS under Section 194(1)(b) of the Act and details of rent earned by the Appellant as per Form 26AS and rent offered by the Appellant

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Profit and Loss Account as ‘Revenue from Operations’. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that chart showing details of TDS under Section 194(1)(b) of the Act and details of rent earned by the Appellant as per Form 26AS and rent offered by the Appellant