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)

Jio Platforms Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1770/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljio Platforms Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Office 101, Saffron, Income-Tax, Panchwati 5 Rasta, Circle 2(1)(1), Near Centre Point, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 [Pan : Aaecj 6878 N] Deputy Commissioner Of Jio Platforms Limited, Vs. Income-Tax, Office 101, Saffron, Circle 2(1)(1), Panchwati 5 Rasta, Ahmedabad Near Centre Point, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-06 [Pan : Aaecj 6878 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Department Represented By: Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- These Cross Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short) Dated 16.08.20244 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 2,82,95,09,446/- On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi -

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Jio Platforms Limited, Panchwati Rasta Ambawadi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljio Platforms Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Office 101, Saffron, Income-Tax, Panchwati 5 Rasta, Circle 2(1)(1), Near Centre Point, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 [Pan : Aaecj 6878 N] Deputy Commissioner Of Jio Platforms Limited, Vs. Income-Tax, Office 101, Saffron, Circle 2(1)(1), Panchwati 5 Rasta, Ahmedabad Near Centre Point, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-06 [Pan : Aaecj 6878 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Department Represented By: Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- These Cross Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short) Dated 16.08.20244 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 2,82,95,09,446/- On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi -

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Pvp Ventures Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Crop Ward -5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/CHNY/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1837/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Pvp Ventures Limited The Income Tax Officer Krm Centre, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2) No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chepet, Chepet S.O. Chennai – 600 031. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Aaacs3101P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.M.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2006 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(2) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. :-2-: Ita. No:1837/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms.M.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)