← 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)

Ashish Jindal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 52(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4383/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ashish Jindal, Vs Ito, 8, Sundar Nagar, Ward-52(4), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aexpj2013H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th April, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal Recalled Its Order Vide Ma No.205/Del/2020, Order Dated 11.06.2021. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of 13,41,068/-made on account of interest expenses invoking the provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard ... assessee that the interest claimed by the assessee having direct nexus with the business expediency of the assessee, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 6. The ld. Counsel strongly challenged