← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viia)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)(c)66 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(viia)(c) is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai (234 CTR 1), cited in 97 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia)(c)

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai
234 CTR 1 · 2010 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income not forming part of the total income is not deductible under Section 14A(1). The disallowance must be restricted to direct and indirect expenses having an approximate connection with the earning of such exempt income, and Rule 8D applies from Assessment Year 2008-09.

ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd.
119 TTJ 289 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is attracted even when no exempt income is actually earned from investments in the relevant year, as long as the income from such investments does not or shall not form part of the total income.

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.
262 ITR 587 · 2003 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The fiction created by Section 50(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the computation of capital gains under Sections 48 and 49, and not to other provisions. Section 54E is available for exemption irrespective of whether the asset is depreciable or not.

CIT v. Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd.
122 Taxmann.com 160 · 2020 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not to be considered while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.

DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd.
13 Taxmann.com 168 · 2011 · Reported
38
citing judgments

Securitisation income derived from the business of long-term housing finance is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if the assessee continues to bear the risk of default.

State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT
318 ITR 171 · Reported
37
citing judgments

Investments made by a bank to maintain the Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) mandated by the RBI, which yield tax-free interest, are not subject to disallowance under Section 14A. The mandatory nature of these investments requires their exclusion when computing disallowances.

CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
52 Taxmann.com 164 · 2014 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated if the Assessing Officer has considered an issue and adopted a view permissible in law.

Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT
261 ITR 708 · 2003 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Amendments to Section 36(1)(viii) are prospective, meaning deductions allowed for amounts transferred to a special reserve prior to the amendment, and subsequently withdrawn, cannot be subjected to tax for assessment years prior to the amendment's effective date.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viia)(c)

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

both the AYs are as below: (i) Validity of order under section 263. (ii) Non-allowance of provision for standard assets under section 36(1)(viia) (c) of the Act [without prejudice to (i)] The assessee company was formed as an autonomous body by an Act of Parliament ... relevant clauses of section 36(1)(viia). 21. It is observed the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c). The section 36(1)(viia)(c) is reproduced herewith- 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

ITA 651/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

providing long-term finance to enterprises engaged in developing, maintaining and operating infrastructure projects and facilities. The assessee claimed deductions under section 36(1) (viia)(c) as also under section 36(1)(viii) in respect of provisions made for bad and doubtful debts.The Assessing Officer held that the claim ... deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) can be allowed only after reducing from the assessee income, the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viii) and that deductions cannot be granted independent of each provision.The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer.On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order