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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Alwar vs. Shri Kishan Lal Agarwal, Alwar

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 97/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 A.C.I.T., Cuke Kishan Lal Agarwal, Vs. Circle-2, Prop.-M/S Shree Balaji Cattle Alwar. Feeds, G1-112, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, Alwar (Raj) Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aeypa 8480 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Solitary Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,28,000/- Made U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act, Without Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & The Material Brought On Record.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Dy CIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developer Ltd.(Since Lodha Estae P. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 1658/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- M/S Macrotech Developer Ltd. Tax Cc-7(3), Room No. 655, Vs. (Since Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developer Ltd.), Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Mumbai – 400 020 Cawasji Patel Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan No. Aaacl1723E (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Shri. Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y 2015-16. The Revenue Has Assailed The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Effective Grounds Before Us : “1. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The I.T Act. 2. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,02,86,452/- Towards Sales Promotion Expense & Rs. 6,68,13,114/- On Account Of Advertisement Expenses Made By The Assessing Officer By Capitalizing The Same To The Work-In-Progress.” 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Company That Was Merged With M/S Lodha Developers Limited (Now Known As Macrotech Developers Limited) Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate. Return Of Income For A.Y 2015-16 Was E-Filed By The Assessee On 31.08.2015, Declaring A Loss

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S. Brigade Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nuevo Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4287/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4287/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2015-16) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Nuevo Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle-3(2)(2) Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, 41/44 Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 674, Minoo Desai Marg, Colabal, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 005 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcd7314A अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri V.K. Chaturved, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri Dr. K Shivram, Ar स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It061/2017-18 Vide Dated 10.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai (In Short Dcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Vide Order Dated 31.05.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses On Account Of Interest Made By Assessing Officer Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised Various

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturved, DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K Shivram, AR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)