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)

Unitherm Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2955/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2954 & 2955/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Unitherm Engineerings बनाम/ Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -3, Ltd., Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, A-109, Boomerang, First Floor, Road No.16-Z, Chandivali Farm Road, Wagle Industrial Estate, Chandivali, Powai, Thane(W)-400604 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacu4041L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Madhukar Khandekar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri H M Wanare & Shri Kailash Kanojiya सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25. 7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 12.2.2015 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 20010-11. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, These Appeals Are Being Decided By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Common Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition On Account Of Notional

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Khandekar
Section 36(1)(iii)

Unitherm Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2954/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2954 & 2955/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Unitherm Engineerings बनाम/ Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -3, Ltd., Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, A-109, Boomerang, First Floor, Road No.16-Z, Chandivali Farm Road, Wagle Industrial Estate, Chandivali, Powai, Thane(W)-400604 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacu4041L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Madhukar Khandekar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri H M Wanare & Shri Kailash Kanojiya सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25. 7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 12.2.2015 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 20010-11. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, These Appeals Are Being Decided By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. The Common Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition On Account Of Notional

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Khandekar
Section 36(1)(iii)

Piramal Corporate Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 1284/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1284/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Dcit-Circle-7(1), (Now Known As Piramal Corporate Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,New Marine Piramal Tower, Peninsula Corporate Park, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W) Mumbai-400013. Pan:Aaacj 5669 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Yogesh Thar & Manthan Shah –Ar.S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.30.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-13,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee –Company, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Various Consultancy Services Like Management Consultancy Services, Corporate Strategy Services To Its Group & Is Also Making Investment In Other Companies. It Filed Its Return Of Income 13.10.2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs.15.29Crores .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Was Passed On 31.12.2012, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 19.67 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh Thar and Manthan Shah –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)