← 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)

Edelweiss Finanacial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1197/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) 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?” Ground

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

without appreciating the fact that the issue of these Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) 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?” Ground

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

than the loans and advances given to the related parties without charging interest. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance of ₹1,01,20374/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITA nos. 1288 & 1644/Mum/2019 M/s Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 5–16 iii. With respect to the disallowance under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

No.4221/Mum./2017 43. The issue arising in ground No. 3, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to allowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) subject to the provisions of section 14A of the Act. 44. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from ... remuneration includes royalties, questioning arrangement, other charges, interest on investments etc. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order noted that the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowed to the assessee prior to assessment year 2009 – 10. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order held that

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

No.4221/Mum./2017 43. The issue arising in ground No. 3, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to allowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) subject to the provisions of section 14A of the Act. 44. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from ... remuneration includes royalties, questioning arrangement, other charges, interest on investments etc. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order noted that the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowed to the assessee prior to assessment year 2009 – 10. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order held that

India Infrastructure and Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3134/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalindia Infrastructure & Vs. The Acit-6(1) Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. [Now Assessed With Acit-15(2)(1)] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Techno Campus, Road, Mumbai – 400 020 5Th Floor, Lodha Supremus Iii Building, Kanjur Marg East Mumbai – 400 042 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabci4652G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aarti Visanj &For Respondent: Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

ITA No.3134/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 1 India Infrastructure and Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skm Fabrics ( Amana ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7027/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Circle-4(3)(2), Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Skm Fabrics (Amana) Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Ground Floor, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aafcs2660E ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hoshang B Irani (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Yogesh Joijode Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 Order Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B Irani (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Joijode
Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,78,78,358/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading of locally manmade gray fabrics. The assessee ... Fabrics (Amana) Ltd. 3. Further to this, the AO had made addition of interest @ 15% amounting to Rs. 4,78,78,358/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the pretext that the assessee has given interest free loans and advances from the interest bearing borrowed funds

Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5516/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal Tax-18(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) 33/35, Ground Floor, Matru Vatsalya, 2Nd Fofal Wadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400 002. Pan : Aaatc7307E (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi
Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal. In ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in restricting addition made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) to Rs.5,91,365/- as against Rs.45,46,301/- made by the Assessing ... charge any interest from the aforesaid company. The ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer for making the addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Kudu Industries

Apl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

Apl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

only two issue raised in this appeal assailing the orders of CIT(A) i.e. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.93,76,644/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also rejection of alternate prayer of allowing interest expenditure under ... grounds of appeal deal with only two issues i.e. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1) Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w.r 8D. FINDINGS: 7. Disallowance under section 36

Asst CIT Circle- 7 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8060/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 8060/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2003-04) Cit, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No.128A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.) 1 Piramal Towerannexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aabcg-0093-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Minlind Chavan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ronak Doshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05 /08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 22/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Shri Ronak Doshi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Effective Grounds. Majority Of The Grounds Raised In Appeal By Revenue Are Either Covered By The Order Of 2 Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.9645/Mum/2004 For Assessment Year 2001-02 Decided On 02/08/2016 Or By The Order Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Assessee Titled Pcit Vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal No.556 Of 2017 Decided On 11/06/2019. 3. Per Contra, Shri Minlind Chavan Representing The Department Vehemently Defending The Assessment Order Prayed For Reversing The Findings Of Cit(A) & Upholding The Additions Made In The Assessment Order. However, Ld. Departmental Representative Fairly Stated That Substantial Issues Raised In The Appeal Have Been Considered By The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For Preceding Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Minlind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi
Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ सी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

assessee's business as in the case of Birla Cotton Mills (supra). Apart from section 37, the assessee has also present into service Section 36(1) (iii) which permits deduction in respect of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the assessee ... business or profession. For the reasons set out earlier, the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) is also misconceived just as the assessee's claim under section 37 is misconceived. In the premises, the question raised has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against

Dy.Citi CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Sucessor to M/S. Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 837/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 837/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit, Cc-7(3) बिधम/ M/S. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, Aayakar Ltd. (Successor To M/S. Lodha Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Estate Private Limited) 4Th Mumbai-400020. 412, Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 25.02.2022 Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2016-17. 2. The Sole Ground Of The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Amounting To Rs.3,67,86,750/- On The Plea That There Is Absence Of Direct Nexus Between Assessee’S Own Funds & The Investment Made By It. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Has Taken Loan From Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. On Which It Has Paid Interest @

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr.AR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM