“Section 36(1)(iii)”

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

moto disallowance of INR 4,22,01,943/- offered by the Assessee, (b) a disallowance of INR 32,73,14,212/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, (c) a disallowance of credit card commission expenses of INR 4,22,19,634/- claimed by the Assessee for failure ... Rules as proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. The DRP, however, deleted the disallowance of INR 32,73,14,212/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the disallowance of credit card commission expenses of INR 4,22,19,634/- proposed by the Assessing Officer in the Draft

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

Lokhandwala Construction (supra), another Coordinate Bench of Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” 6.3.3 Since, the view taken by me on this issue in an earlier order in the case of another group concern ... fixed asset of the assessee, the interest paid on loans obtained for stock-in-trade is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(A) has, in effect, granted relief to the Appellant by following the above decisions of the Tribunal

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

against secured loans for its windmill projects. The Kukreja Development Corporation ITA No.5766/Mum./2017 learned CIT observed that the applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) along with explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act does not appear to have been looked into by the Assessing Officer ... assessment order, inter-alia, on the issue of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO was directed to examine the applicability of section 36(1)(iii) along with explanation 8 to section 43(1) and decide the issue as per the provisions of the Act. 5. Pursuant

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

interest was at Rs.82,21,73,747/- and Rs.1,98,73,6967- totalling to Rs.83,70,43,071/- which was claimed under section 36(1)(iii) as allowable expenditure being the case that interest expenditure was incurred on loan availed from the L/C by the assessee company

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

loan was obtained for the project of construction of flats, which is stock in trade, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on such loans. The Hon’ble Court further held that while adjudicating the claim of deduction ... under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the nature of the expense, whether the expense was on capital account or revenue account was irrelevant, as the section itself says that interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed is allowable as a deduction. 19. In the present case, undisputedly

ACIT CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Bellissimo Hi-Rise Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

ground No. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 11,13,552, made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. M/s. Macrotech Developers Ltd. ITA No.490/Mum./2022 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee ... interest and lending the money at a lower rate of interest and justification for claiming the differential amount as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In absence of any justification, the Assessing Officer (‘AO‟) vide order dated 30/12/2016, passed under section

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 527/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To Lodha Impression Real Estate Private Limited,) 412, Floor -4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road,Horniman Circle. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl-1490-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order

crores as claimed in the computation of income on ground of interest expenses retained in inventory is deductible under provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was further informed that the said amount of interest paid was in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capitalised till the asset is put to use. This is supported by Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) and proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Any cost incurred beyond that period should be charged off as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, `Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No.7287/Mum./2018 he argued

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL