← 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)

Mrs. Shruti Mayank Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

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

ITA 4370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh - Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

from those particulartransactions are to be treated as Business Income. Consequently Interest paid to Financial Institution is to be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Therefore, Interest paid to Financial Institution is either to be allowed under the head Business Income or Capital gain

Bosch Rexroth (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 448/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hagglunds Drives (India) Pvt. Ltd. ( Now Merged in Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 931/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kedar Shashank Ranade, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -2, Pune

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

ITA 1233/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

under consideration. Since the assessee has not charged any interest, therefore, the Assessing Officer examined the issue with respect to the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.6,25,496/- in respect

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

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

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

property to be constructed and deduction of TDS u/s 194A on such assured return, treating the same as interest is therefore, allowable under section 36(1) (iii). Accordingly, addition of Rs 42,87,700/- is deleted and this ground is decided in favour of the appellant.” 16. The issue

M/S. Rameshwar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO -20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1797/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChajjedFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

under Section 143(3) of the Act vide, Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, making, inter alia, aforesaid addition of INR 2,14,219/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The relevant extract of the Assessment Order reads as under: “On perusal of profit and loss account, it has been ... relevant details were furnished before the Assessing Officer and only after duly appreciating the same, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was contended that the amount of interest to be disallowed cannot be computed on the basis of closing balance

Tmf Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2031/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

Rs.39,86,33,662/- being interest paid on perpetual debentures which the assessee has claimed the same as a deductible expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. The ld. AO has disallowed the said claim on the following reasons:- “What is allowable u/s 36(1) (iii ... concept of borrowing. If there is no obligation of refund the capital provided, interest on such capital is not deductible under Section 36(1)(III). Hence, in the case of Hybrid or perpetual debentures, where the leader does not have authority or right to claim refund on the amount given

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

each year should be assessed on its own merits. The DR also contended that the Reliance Utilities case dealt with disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), not Rule 8D, and was thus not applicable in the present case. The Ld DR emphasized that the AO had provided valid reasons

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

each year should be assessed on its own merits. The DR also contended that the Reliance Utilities case dealt with disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), not Rule 8D, and was thus not applicable in the present case. The Ld DR emphasized that the AO had provided valid reasons

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

each year should be assessed on its own merits. The DR also contended that the Reliance Utilities case dealt with disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), not Rule 8D, and was thus not applicable in the present case. The Ld DR emphasized that the AO had provided valid reasons

Om Sri Maa Shakti Namah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-32(2), Mumbai

ITA 1989/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Interest paid Less: Interest Received from others Less: Interest on FD Interest Expenses Reported in Profit & Loss Statement and claimed under section 36(1)(iii) 1,97,13,918 1,45,82,918 7,90,124 43,40,876 2.1 The assessee filed return of income for the year under

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhavan vs. Piramal Glass Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Asst. Cit-8(2)(1), Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcg 0093 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ronak Doshi &
Section 36(1)(ii)

interest on overdraft Assessee was entitled to deduction of interest on overdraft Assessee was entitled to deduction of interest on overdraft under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investment was under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investment was under Section 36(1)(iii

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1819/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, Ι

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1818/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, Ι

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, Ι

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1440/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & SHRI MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, Ι

M/S Raj Kumar Singh & Co., Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

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

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

conclusion that there was no cash surplus, then the effect of such finding on the question of allowability of deduction under Section 36(1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961, would also be determined. Consequently, the impugned orders of the High Court and ITAT are set aside and the matter

Black Rock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

show any interest income in Profit & Loss Account and, therefore, the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure should have been made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act for advancing loans and advances to related parties without interest by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT further observed that from note ... current account. The Ld. AR submitted that these details were given to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the question of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act does not arise. The PCIT was not justified in holding that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest