← All Phrases

“Section 36(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(2)440 judgments

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEETAL JEWELLERYHOUSE LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8124/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiaacit 19(3), Mumbai Sheetal Jewellery House Llp Room No. 513, 5Th Floor, Piramal Vs. 503/504, Brahans Business Park, Chamber, Parel Mumbai 400012 Off Mahakali, Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqfs9693D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे / Assessee By: Shri. Paresh Shaparia /Revenue By: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee [J.M]: Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)"] Order Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] Order Passed For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Date Of Order 25.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao"], Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 26.12.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 36

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI. ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

IPHONLINE LIMITED (NOW AS ASAPP INFO GLOBAL SERVIES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's Appeal is partly allowed, in the\nabove terms

ITA 5946/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

same time, the\nAssessee has also not been able to prove that it is not hit by the\nrestriction of the provision of section 36(2) of the Act. The Ld.\nCommissioner also observed that in view of the judgment by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... Catholic Syrien Bank Limited\nVs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the Assessee must prove all the\ningredients of section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2). Proper\ndocumentation and adherence to conditions are essential for\nclaiming Bad debt deduction. The Assessee neither before the\nAssessing Officer nor before

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

Taxes *** New Delhi, Dated 30th May, 2016 Subject: Admissibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under section 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961-reg. Proposals have been received by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding filing of appeals/pursuing litigation ... books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act.” 9.2. Thus, CBDT has clarified that in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

CORDOBA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2388/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Cordoba Engineering Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Limited Aaykar Bhawan P-7, 23A, 7Th Floor, Room No.17, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Netaji Shubas Road, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal 700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc0348K Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

thus, offered the income to tax. During the year the assessee has only claimed debts as bad u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. In our opinion, the mere writing of debts as bad is enough for claiming the deduction and assessee is not required ... books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section(2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act.” Cordoba Engineering Private Limited; A.Y. 2022-23 6. Considering these facts and circumstances and the ratio laid in the above decisions

LINKPOINT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1477/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(2)

balances written off amounting to Rs. 6,20,48,903/-, which is ought to have been allowed as per the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during ... dealt with u/s 36(2) of the IT Act. The appellant by not filing submission has failed to show how the provision of section 36(2) has been satisfied by the appellant. The appellant had not filed any documentary evidence showing that the bad debts/balances written off were included

ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL TOURS & TRAVELS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

held that the bad debts written off could be allowed provided it had been written off under section 36(2). He, therefore, directed the AO to call for the earlier year’s records to ascertain whether this amount had been added in earlier years and give credit for the same

INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI

ITA 5552/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

years. CBDT circular No 12/2016 dated\n31st May 2016 on admissibility of claim deduction of bad debts\nu/s 36(1) (vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 has cleared the position of allowability of bad debts that\nare written off irrecoverable in the accounts ... nbusiness of providing long term finances to infrastructure projects\ntherefore, the amount written off should have been allowed.\nHowever, in terms of section 36(2)(v) of the Act, the said amount\nshould have been debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts.\nThe relevant provision of section 36

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

admitted fact that such principal amount had never been taken into account in computing taxable income of any earlier year, thereby violating Section 36(2)?\"\n4. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law, in holding that the condition ... Section 36(2) is satisfied merely because interest income on such loan was taxed in earlier years, overlooking the legislative intent that the \"debt OR part thereof\" must itself be in the nature of a trading/money-lending debt?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

nprovisions already allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). The use of word 'credit balance'\nin proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and 'debited' in section 36(2)(v), has been\nstretched too far by the assessee and its learned advisors, to give an absurd\nmeaning to the provisions itself. The basic ... rural branches of such bank. As\nregards the deduction for bad debts, it is also relevant to note the provisions\nof section 36(2)(v) of the Act, which reads as follows:-\n\"(2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following\nprovisions shall apply

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

said account to the extent of credit balance and as per proviso to section 36(1)(vii), excess is allowable as bad debt. Section 36(2)(v) clearly states that the assessee has to debit the bad debt or a part of it to the PBDD account. The excess cannot ... reducing bad debts and the excess amount of bad debts written off is to be claimed u/s 36(1)(vii). As per section 36(2)(v) only that part of bad debt is to be debited to the provision account for which there is a credit balance available

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

nprovisions already allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). The use of word 'credit balance'\nin proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and 'debited' in section 36(2)(v), has been\nstretched too far by the assessee and its learned advisors, to give an absurd\nmeaning to the provisions itself. The basic ... rural branches of such bank. As\nregards the deduction for bad debts, it is also relevant to note the provisions\nof section 36(2)(v) of the Act, which reads as follows:-\n\"(2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following\nprovisions shall apply

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

said account to the extent of credit balance and as per proviso to section 36(1)(vii), excess is allowable as bad debt. Section 36(2)(v) clearly states that the assessee has to debit the bad debt or a part of it to the PBDD account. The excess cannot ... reducing bad debts and the excess amount of bad debts written off is to be claimed u/s 36(1)(vii). As per section 36(2)(v) only that part of bad debt is to be debited to the provision account for which there is a credit balance available

DEUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. ANAND RATHI COMMODITIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5983/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

credited to the Profit and Loss\nAccount and offered to tax, are allowable as bad debts under\nsection 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. The learned\nAuthorised Representative submitted that the ratio laid down by\nthe Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court squarely covers the issue ... brokerage income\nhas already been taken into account in computing business\nincome, constitute allowable bad debts under section 36(1)(vii)\nread with section 36(2) of the Act. While the said decision lays\ndown the governing legal principle, its applicability in the present\ncase depends upon factual verification

MODI HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5315/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Modi Home Products Limited Income Tax Officer, Second Floor, Akash Ganga, Ward 5(2)(3), Vs. 89, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400026 Pan No. Aaacm 4151 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jain (Virtually
Section 143(3)

mandated by secti income in any year, as mandated by section 36(1)(vii) read with on 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. section 36(2) of the Act. 4.3 Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee argued that the under provision Before ... accounts of the assessee for the written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. However, section 36(2) expressly conditions such previous year. However, section 36(2) expressly conditions such previous year. However, section 36(2) expressly conditions such deduction on the requirement that

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nKOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nKOLKATA 'C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nKOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

flat at\nRs.11,68,99,000/- as from unexplained source under Section 69 of the Act. There\nis no reference to Section 36(2)(x) of the Act in the operative part of the order\ndated 29th September 2022. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated\n29th September

Showing 1–20 of 440 · Page 1 of 22

...