← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)1,547 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii)

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.

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.

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.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

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.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(iii)

Abhay Benara, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

Benara group nor there is any business nexus with the funds given to Benara group on loan, therefore as per the provision of section 36(1)(iii) this interest paid Rs.12,79,271/- is not an allowable expenditure. Addition made is therefore sustained on this ground.” Page

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

Addition under Section 68 – Rs.9,06,000/- • Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) – Rs.1,03,440/- • Disallowance of Interest Expenses under Section 36(1)(iii) – Rs.27,73,725/- • Discrepancy in Form 26AS and P&L Account – Rs.52,860/- 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who partly ... reinforced the decision that the funds were not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs.27,83,725/- under Section 36(1)(iii) made by the AO. 15. During the course of hearing before us, the AR reiterated the facts and stated that the assessee

Dacss Granites Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Balram R. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

ITA No.1876/Bang/2024 DACSS Granites Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 4302/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4300/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4298/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4297/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4295/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4293/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

appellant contends that both Assessing officer and learned commissioner erred in treating premium to be paid on FCCB bonds as interest falling under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. The appellant contends that the premium payable on redemption of bonds falls to be allowed as a expenditure ... erroneous. 5. In any event the proportionate premium of Rs.35,35,167 is allowable u/s 37(1) and does not fall under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T.Act. 3 Allcargo Gati Limited 6. The appellant contends that the disallowance of proportionate premium of Rs. 68,19,473 towards amounts

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1721/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

appellant contends that both Assessing officer and learned commissioner erred in treating premium to be paid on FCCB bonds as interest falling under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. The appellant contends that the premium payable on redemption of bonds falls to be allowed as a expenditure ... erroneous. 5. In any event the proportionate premium of Rs.35,35,167 is allowable u/s 37(1) and does not fall under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T.Act. 3 Allcargo Gati Limited 6. The appellant contends that the disallowance of proportionate premium of Rs. 68,19,473 towards amounts

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. Chl Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 9298/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,06,646/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8780/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,06,646/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8779/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,06,646/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8778/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,06,646/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8777/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 8777 To 8780 /Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14 To 2016-17) Chl Limited Acit The Hotel Surya New Circle-6(1) Friends Colony, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Chl Limited Circle-6(1) The Hotel Surya New New Delhi Vs. Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No: Aaacc2587M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv, Sh. Manish Malik, Adv & Sh. Pankaj Jain, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,06,646/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance amounting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Firefly Market Research India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4184/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

follows: – “7. In ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed enhancement made by the CIT(A) by disallowing interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the case of the assessee was selected under ‘limited scrutiny’ category ... limited scrutiny’ and made addition accordingly. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) made 7 disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.17,34,520/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that the CIT(A) has enhanced assessment by invoking provisions of section 36(1