← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)513 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(iv) is Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. (269 ITR 285), cited in 176 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iv)

Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.
269 ITR 285 · 2004 · High Court
176
citing judgments

Employee contributions towards ESI and PF are allowable as a deduction if paid by the due date for filing the income tax return, even if paid after the statutory due dates prescribed under the respective ESI/PF Acts.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
363 ITR 307 · 2014 · High Court
115
citing judgments

Employees' contribution to provident fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) deposited by the employer on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT
308 ITR 417 · 2009 · High Court
74
citing judgments

The write-back or waiver of a loan obtained for business purposes constitutes taxable business income under Section 28. This applies even if no prior deduction was claimed, thereby not attracting Section 41(1).

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

KeshrichandJaisukhlal v. CIT
199 ITR 702 · 1993 · High Court
62
citing judgments

Notional income, such as notional interest on interest-free loans, cannot be brought to tax without a specific statutory provision in the Income Tax Act. Only real income that has accrued or been received by the assessee is subject to income tax.

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT
238 ITR 939 · 1999 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(iv)

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Services Private Limited (supra) that there is clear distinction between employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of section 36(1)(iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees' [in terms of section 36(1

Schneider Electric Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT 3, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1568/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1568/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & +े यािचका सं../ S.A No.28/Chny/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1568/Chny/2024) (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Schneider Electric Systems India P. Ltd. Pcit Sp Plot No.16-19 & 20A, Chennai-3. बनाम/ Taramani Tech Park Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Guindy Industrial Estate S.O. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-8027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 37Section 40A(9)

1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained and continues to be maintained ... condition for allowing the expenditure. 53. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

A R J Fireworks, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 443/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.443/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Arj Fireworks Ito बनाम/ Ward-1 184, Palaniandavarpuram Colony, Vs. Virudhunagar. Sivakasi-626 123. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapfa-4749-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mukundan(Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Mukundan(JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iv)

whose salary does not exceed Rs. 500 per month. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 476 (AP) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indocean Engineer (P.) Ltd. Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Provident fund - Contributions towards recognised provident fund - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether contributions by assessee-company directly ... excess of 27% of salaries of employees, by way of lump sum contribution to approved pension fund and claimed deduction of same under section 36(1)(iv), as amount remitted was neither towards an initial contribution nor towards ordinary annual contribution, ceiling fixed under Rules 87 and 88 would