← 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)

Monica Gold Pipes Private Limited, Khasra No vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(2), C R Building

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3791/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Interest free loans to subsidiaries) - Assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim under section 36( 1)(iii) taking a view that interest would not have been payable to banks if funds were not provided to subsidiaries - Tribunal finding that interest ... case of CIT Vs. Golden Tobacco Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: - (Head note) “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital (Interest free advances) - Assessment years 1996-97 and 1997- 98 - Assessee- company borrowed funds and claimed deduction

Nahar Poly Films Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 458/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

2349/MUM/2024 excess amounting to Rs.12,30,46,063/ excess amounting to Rs.12,30,46,063/- was disallowed invoking was disallowed invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition On further appeal ... Rs.12,30,46,063/ separate disallowance made by the AO of Rs.12,30,46,063/ reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii) of the Act reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

2349/MUM/2024 excess amounting to Rs.12,30,46,063/ excess amounting to Rs.12,30,46,063/- was disallowed invoking was disallowed invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition On further appeal ... Rs.12,30,46,063/ separate disallowance made by the AO of Rs.12,30,46,063/ reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii) of the Act reproduced above is required. The section 36(1)(iii

Jagriti Job Finder Private Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2133/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Pandey
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

P a g e | 1 M/s Jagriti Job Finder Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT(Central)-1 Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

Orion Automobiles Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgoan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1792/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 144Section 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO had erred in making disallowance of Rs.85,17,349/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which is based on the assumption of wrong facts. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the interest of Rs.17,66,79,121/-invoking the provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act, applying average cost of debts to the amount of capital works-in-progress (CWIP), addition to fixed assets and capital advance, ignoring ... year had been financed borrowed funds and therefore interest cost proportionate to the same is liable to be disallowed under provision to section 36(1)(iii) r/s Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has not established the nexus between the borrowed funds and CWIP/fixed

Rishabh Birla, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-24, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 1151/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Bhawan Mohan Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Bhawan Mohan Garg Circle – 32 (1) C-16, Green Park New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan No.Aahpg2084K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 195Section 40Section 40t

from interest bearing loans taken by the firm from the parties and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii). In other words, the Tribunal held that loans were given for business purposes. Similarly, for assessment year 1993- 94, the Tribunal had taken the view ... business purposes and that interest paid thereon did not exceed 18/12 per cent per annum, the assessee was entitled to deductions under section 36(1)(iii), read with section 40(b)(iv) of the 1961 Act. 17. One aspect needs to be mentioned during the assessment year 1995-96, apart

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 231/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

The Jt.CIT, (OSD)Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 223/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 166/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

utilized for the work-in-progress of Rs.58,13,869/- shown during the year under consideration and accordingly as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act the interest expenditure attributable to the capital work-in- progress is not allowable as deduction for computing the total ... investments are made out of interest-free funds and therefore, the AO was not justified in making additions and/or making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the learned ITAT in deleting the disallowance made

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Casa Grand Builder Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 777/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.777/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) (Earlier Known As Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Chennai. Vs. Lb Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.726/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited Jcit(Osd) बनाम (Earlier Known As Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) Corporate Circle-1(1) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Lb Chennai. / Vs. Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda Kumar Ld. Cit-Drs A/W Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2024

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda
Section 143(3)Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ईम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा

Casa Grande Builder Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 726/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.777/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) (Earlier Known As Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Chennai. Vs. Lb Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.726/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Casagrand Premier Builder Limited Jcit(Osd) बनाम (Earlier Known As Casa Grand Builder P. Ltd.) Corporate Circle-1(1) 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, New No.111, Old No.59. Lb Chennai. / Vs. Road, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai-600 041 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-2758-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda Kumar Ld. Cit-Drs A/W Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2024

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapna Nanu Ambath & Sh. V. Nanda
Section 143(3)Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ईम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPD) do not qualify as borrowing for the purposed of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?" The revenue has raised ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPD) do not qualify as borrowing for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?" 8 ITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPD) do not qualify as borrowing for the purposed of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?" The revenue has raised ... without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPD) do not qualify as borrowing for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the lender at any given point of time?" 8 ITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

total interest expenses debited in the P&L account, a sum of Rs.2,12,94,836/- was capitalized towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The addition as made by the AO was upheld ... interest attributable to the same on proportionate basis amounting to Rs.15,11,66,895/-, which accordingly was disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 63. The ld.CIT(A), however, noted that interest free funds owned by the assessee was much more than the interest free advances

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Archean Salt Holdings Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 78/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.78/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KM.Mohan Dass, C.A IJFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा" एवं

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

another interesting feature involved to resolve this controversy is that the revenue otherwise cannot allow the claim of payment under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because as per this section, the deduction is provided in respect of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed ... payment did not fall within the category of "income from other sources" as also cannot be allowed as payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required to be deducted