← All Phrases

“Section 36(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 36(2) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(2)

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.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

Judgments citing Section 36(2)

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

account of the assessee for the previous year, shall be allowed as deduction in computing business income, subject to the provisions of section 36(2). Section 36(2) lays down several conditions for allow ability of deduction for a bad debt or part thereof. One of such conditions, specified ... Those receivables were duly taken into consideration by the Gati Ltd. in the income offered and therefore, the assessee meets the condition of section 36(2) of the Act and deduction for same is allowable. Regarding the advances and loans written off it was submitted that the losses arising were

Metal Box India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 250

India Ltd., AY: 2013-14. Since the entire sundry debtors balance is written off and claimed as bad within the meaning of section 36(2) of the act, it is essential to write back those provisions which was accordingly done by the assessee. It was also submitted that

M/S. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly

ITA 6130/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: the time of hearing."

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. vs. DCIT investments from the books, this cannot be allowed as allowable deduction as the conditions of Section 36(2) are not complied with for claim of bad debts. He further observed that the above said amount has never been credited to Profit

Roop Kishore Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9540/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 36(2)

through the record. 10. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The facts of the matter is that the assessee has claimed expenses ... assessee. 12. Thus, the facts of the case are clear and apparent from the record. 13. The Assessing Officer has relied on section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act and asked the assessee to explain whether these receipts were routed through the Profit & Loss A/c within the meaning

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvantlal Girdharlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 36(2)

consideration or earlier years, and hence the conditions laid down in consideration or earlier years, and hence the conditions laid down in section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied. section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied. 2. At the outset

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

I.T.A. No.432/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Linde India limited (formerly BOC India Limited) interest of the revenue as per Section 36(2) of the Act and similarly the provisions for warranty which were debited in the profit and loss account which were held to be unascertained liability

G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 317. 3Rd Floor, Rectangle Circle-10(2), One, D-4, Saket District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaecg5244P Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Mr. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

there is no claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no requirement of compliance to conditions prescribed in section 36(2) of the Act. Hence the argument of the ld. DR in this regard is rejected. 10. The next argument advanced

Shri Mufiz Burhamuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

Facts of the case and the submissions are considered. The appellant has failed to establish that all the conditions of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act are satisfied. The appellant has failed to establish that these amounts had ever been offered as income. In these circumstances

Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

requirement of section 36(1)(vii) and the write off fulfils the requirement of section 36(1 )(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A)-18 ought to have seen that once the appellant has lent money and offered the interest ... appellant of lending money is a business activity. Therefore, the debt qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen even if the condition laid down u/s. 36(l)(vii) r.w.s

Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

requirement of section 36(1)(vii) and the write off fulfils the requirement of section 36(1 )(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A)-18 ought to have seen that once the appellant has lent money and offered the interest ... appellant of lending money is a business activity. Therefore, the debt qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen even if the condition laid down u/s. 36(l)(vii) r.w.s

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 678/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

write off, the write off should exceed the credit balance in the "provision for bad and doubtful debt" made. Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) shall be allowed to the assessee falling under 36(1 )(viia), unless the assessee ... debts to the profit and loss account and correspondingly closed the debtor account. Further the assessee has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 36(2)(v). Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) u/s 36(1 )(vii) shall

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 677/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

write off, the write off should exceed the credit balance in the "provision for bad and doubtful debt" made. Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) shall be allowed to the assessee falling under 36(1 )(viia), unless the assessee ... debts to the profit and loss account and correspondingly closed the debtor account. Further the assessee has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 36(2)(v). Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) u/s 36(1 )(vii) shall

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1343/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

write off, the write off should exceed the credit balance in the "provision for bad and doubtful debt" made. Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) shall be allowed to the assessee falling under 36(1 )(viia), unless the assessee ... debts to the profit and loss account and correspondingly closed the debtor account. Further the assessee has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 36(2)(v). Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) u/s 36(1 )(vii) shall

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1321/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

write off, the write off should exceed the credit balance in the "provision for bad and doubtful debt" made. Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) shall be allowed to the assessee falling under 36(1 )(viia), unless the assessee ... debts to the profit and loss account and correspondingly closed the debtor account. Further the assessee has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 36(2)(v). Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) u/s 36(1 )(vii) shall

Agr Steel Strips Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 1648/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Agr Steel Strips Private Limited Dcit 204, Nirmal Tower 26, Vs. Central Circle-29, Barakhamba Road, Jhandewalan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabca3459R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 131Section 36(2)

confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,64,73,479/- made by the AO on account of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 36(2) of the income Tax Act while computing the income under the normal provision of Income Tax Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances ... above said disallowance despite that the addition has been made ignoring the fact all the necessary conditions for claiming the deduction under Section 36(2) have been complied with by the assessee and therefore the deduction claimed is an allowable expenditure under the Income Tax Act. 5. On the facts

ACIT Corporate Circle -1 (1), Kochi vs. M/S Geofin Comtrade Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 968/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

recovery in an account qua which such a provision has been made, would be accompanied by a reversal of provision to that extent (section 36(2)(v)). All the applicable provisions are to be read in harmony and consistent with each other

ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Geofin Comtrade Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 967/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

recovery in an account qua which such a provision has been made, would be accompanied by a reversal of provision to that extent (section 36(2)(v)). All the applicable provisions are to be read in harmony and consistent with each other

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

mentioned above. On careful examination of the decision, it is noticed that the decision did not take into consideration the effect of section 36(2)(v) while concluding that section 41(4) cannot be invoked as the assessee has not claimed bad debts u/ 36 ... viia) of the I.T. Act. 5.2.4 The provision of write off of bad debts as per section 36(L)(vii) is subject to section 36(2) of the I.T. Act. While Section 36(L)(vii) allows deduction of amount of any bad debt or part Page No. 4 ITA NO.1439/MUM/2023

Manohar Prasad Akkineni, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1216/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य