Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.29, 30, 31, 32

Section 36(1)(iii) falls under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 29 (Deductions related to employee welfare), section 30 (Deduction on certain premium), section 31 (Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt) and section 32 (Other deductions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 29 of the 2025 ActRead section 30 of the 2025 ActRead section 31 of the 2025 ActRead section 32 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(iii) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 of the 3,665 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody
115 ITR 519 · 1978 · Supreme Court
386
citing judgments

For deductions under Section 57(iii) relating to "Income from Other Sources," an expenditure is allowable if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, even if no income is actually earned in that previous year.

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
379 ITR 347 · 2015 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 206/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

Kapil Foods and Structures Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 205/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Warangal. Pan: Aacck2614F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Kapil Foods & Structures Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 09.12.2024 For The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Identical & Belong To The Same Assessee, One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai, Muimbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3657/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3657, 3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Acit, Cir. 20(1), V/S. Girish Shamji Chheda Mumbai बिाम 227, Sukh Sagar, Bhalchandra 3Rd Floor, Piramal Road, Matunga, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, 400019 Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Acypc2995G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :- These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – SR DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 44ASection 68