← 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)

N M Mehta& Company, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 435/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

total income of the Appellant was assessed at INR 62,99,027/- after making, inter alia, disallowance of INR 6,64,685/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act as 4. 2 well as the above disallowance of interest ... under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order, dated 20/12/2023, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal granting partial relief to the Appellant. However, the CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessment and confirmed the disallowance of interest

Vinco Sales and Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4582/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 66,76,016/- by A.O. under section 36(1)(iii) being interest paid.” 3. Following grounds of appeal has been raised in ITA No. 4581/M/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17: “On facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 20,43,423/- by AO under section 36(1) (iii) being interest paid.” & ITA NO. 4581/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2016-17) Vinco Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. 4. At the outset regarding the inordinate delay in following appeals

Vinco Sales and Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4581/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri. Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 66,76,016/- by A.O. under section 36(1)(iii) being interest paid.” 3. Following grounds of appeal has been raised in ITA No. 4581/M/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17: “On facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 20,43,423/- by AO under section 36(1) (iii) being interest paid.” & ITA NO. 4581/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2016-17) Vinco Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. 4. At the outset regarding the inordinate delay in following appeals

Shree Krishna Jewels, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward -4, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17 wherein the limited ground of appeal relates to sustenance of addition of Rs. 5,61,720/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee firm nor any adjournment application was filed. It was decided that ... show cause as to why the proportionate interest on the remaining amount of Rs. 46,81,000/- @ 12% should not be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and thereafter in absence of any documentary evidence submitted by the assessee firm, interest

Sangir Plastics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)

Limited return of income, the Tax Auditors in item 21(i) of Form No.3CD which require reporting on amount inadmissible under proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) had inadvertently reported the amount of Rs 32,95,767/-. Thereafter, assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s.143 ... auditor has certified an amount of Rs.32,95,767/- in tax audit report in form 3CD as inadmissible under the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii). However, the same was not disallowed in computation of income and added back to total income” 3. In response assessee submitted a detailed reply

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Ground No. 2 to 2.2: Disallowance of INR 19,35,01,258/- being interest on Capital Work-in- Progress under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (c) Ground No. 3 to 3.7: Disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section ... there was substantial addition to the fixed assets base of the Assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of assets for extension of business was not allowed as a deduction. Accordingly

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Ground No. 2 to 2.2: Disallowance of INR 19,35,01,258/- being interest on Capital Work-in- Progress under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (c) Ground No. 3 to 3.7: Disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section ... there was substantial addition to the fixed assets base of the Assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of assets for extension of business was not allowed as a deduction. Accordingly

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Ground No. 2 to 2.2: Disallowance of INR 19,35,01,258/- being interest on Capital Work-in- Progress under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (c) Ground No. 3 to 3.7: Disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section ... there was substantial addition to the fixed assets base of the Assessee. However, according to the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of assets for extension of business was not allowed as a deduction. Accordingly

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2128/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

under Section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.50,67,99,443/-, addition of Rs.5,53,07,808/- towards capitalisation of interest to CWIT under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1 ... Revenue’s appeal, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.5,53,07,808/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 35. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly followed the A.Y. 2011-12 which was decided

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1787/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

under Section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.50,67,99,443/-, addition of Rs.5,53,07,808/- towards capitalisation of interest to CWIT under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1 ... Revenue’s appeal, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.5,53,07,808/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 35. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly followed the A.Y. 2011-12 which was decided

M/S Bigwig Motors Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 106/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Nandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, Dadar (West) vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 3493/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailnandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar, 101, Sumati Krishna Niwas, Shivsena Bhavan Path, ……………. Appellant Near Hotel Ameya, Mumbai-400028. Pan – Aacpt5886F V/S Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400020. Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56

Rs.10,18,634, and the remaining Rs. 19,77,349 was disallowed for not been incurred for the purpose of business under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. During the assessment proceedings, it was also noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation on cards on the basis that

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Company Circle-II(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 805/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.805/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Express Publications (Madurai) P. Ltd, Vs. Dcit No.29, Express Garden, Company Circle Ii (1) Second Main Road Industrial Estate, Now Corporate Circle 2 (1) Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 0842D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Abirami Narendranath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Saujanya Ranjan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Abirami Narendranath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40a

account of delayed payment of PF/ESI, ground Nos. 12 to 15 are in relation to interest paid on advance to group companies under section 36(1)(iii) and ground Nos. 16 to 17 are in relation to the depreciation claim of deferred revenue expenditure (relaunch expenses). 3. At the outset

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowed interest of Rs. 15,28,008/- out of loans and advances of Rs. 1,27,33,400/- @ 12% under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act which he added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. AO also disallowed claim of commission expenses of Rs. 1 ... reasons to sustain this addition. Consequently, the addition is deleted.” 10. As regards the disallowance of interest of Rs. 15,28,008/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 15,04,008/- allowing relief

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized. Hence, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act allows a deduction for interest paid on capital borrowed while computing the business income of the taxpayer. It provides deduction ... iii) of section 36(1) does not use the term 'debt incurred'. Hence, section 2(28A) defines 'interest' in a wider sense whereas section 36(1)(iii) has used it in a restrictive manner. Therefore, it may be concluded that there must be a loan on which interest is paid

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized. Hence, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act allows a deduction for interest paid on capital borrowed while computing the business income of the taxpayer. It provides deduction ... iii) of section 36(1) does not use the term 'debt incurred'. Hence, section 2(28A) defines 'interest' in a wider sense whereas section 36(1)(iii) has used it in a restrictive manner. Therefore, it may be concluded that there must be a loan on which interest is paid

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

case of DCIT v. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Limited (ITA No.5059/Mum/2003), held premium paid on redemption of debentures to be allowable under Section 36(1)(iii)/37 of the Act even though the same was debited to share premium reserve in the books of accounts. (g) Though the order

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

supposed to be capitalized. The AO had disallowed the interest expenses considering that same were not business expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because assessee was showing slaughterhouse work in progress in the assets. Lone for the construction of slaughterhouse WIP had been taken and the interest ... Delhi) where it was laid down that interest paid on borrowed fund for mere extension of existing business, is allowable as deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. The AR pointed out that this case has been affirmed by the Hon’ble SC and reported

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

supposed to be capitalized. The AO had disallowed the interest expenses considering that same were not business expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because assessee was showing slaughterhouse work in progress in the assets. Lone for the construction of slaughterhouse WIP had been taken and the interest ... Delhi) where it was laid down that interest paid on borrowed fund for mere extension of existing business, is allowable as deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. The AR pointed out that this case has been affirmed by the Hon’ble SC and reported

Kailash Gulabchand Liladiya, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 254/NAG/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

fact that, loan processing charges of Rs.4,28,202/- was incurred post obtaining possession of the shop premises and hence, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable. 5. The assessee craves leave to add or amend any other ground of appeal, if required.” 3. The assessee vehemently argued ... light of the above stated pleadings that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and in facts in invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,28,202/-. He has further inviting my addition to the assessee’s application seeking to place on record additional evidence