← All Phrases

“Section 36(3)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(3)(b)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(3)(b) is CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377), cited in 417 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(3)(b)

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.

CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
53 ITR 140 · 1964 · Supreme Court
201
citing judgments

The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than "for the purpose of earning profits" and encompasses expenditures made for commercial expediency, business preservation, administration, and modernization.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
298 ITR 194 · 2008 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji
91 ITR 544 · 1973 · Supreme Court
154
citing judgments

The revenue cannot question the commercial expediency or wisdom of an expenditure incurred by a businessman, as the businessman is the best judge of their own business interests. The department's role is limited to verifying if the expenditure was genuinely incurred and was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

B Kishore Kumar v. DCIT
234 Taxmann 771 · 2015 · Supreme Court
135
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision is cited as authority in search and seizure assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd.
310 ITR 306 · 2009 · High Court
109
citing judgments

No tax evasion occurs when a company pays higher expenditure to a sister concern if the sister concern also pays taxes at a higher rate. This principle applies to disallowances under section 40A(2)(b) when it can be shown that the related entity is not benefiting from a lower tax rate.

CIT v. Bharti Televenture Ltd.
331 ITR 502 · 2011 · High Court
89
citing judgments

Interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free advances made to subsidiaries or group companies if the advances are from owned funds or are justified by commercial expediency.

Judgments citing Section 36(3)(b)