← 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)

Arumuganadar Narayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 806/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arumuga Nadar Narayanan, No. 20/57, New Thandavaraya Gramani Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aadpn-2730-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-17, Vide Order Dated 07.03.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Bad In Law As The Same Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law. :-2-:

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री महावीर सिंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

ITO, Cw-6(3), Chennai vs. Sify Infinit Spaces Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No. 1652/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Sify Infinit Spaces Limited, Cw-6(3), Vs. No.4, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai-600113 No. [Pan: Aazcs5147A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063757208(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2022-23. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By Additional / Jcit, Lucknow. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

Rs.8,06,12,975/- in clause 21(i) of the tax audit :- 3 -: report as sum disallowance as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act with respect to interest payments on borrowed capital. However, in the return of income, the disallowance of Rs.8,06,12,975/- reported under

Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune vs. Dy. CIT Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 27, Bharat Pushpa, Sujay Garden, Mukundnagar, Pune- 411037. Pan : Adxps3821M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Assessee Requests For Condonation Of Delay Of 62 Days In Filing The Appeal Since There Was A Reasonable Cause On The Part Of The Assessee In Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution On The Ground That The Assessee Had Not Filed Any Submissions & Hence Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY