“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)

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1112/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ld Cit(A). Hence Both The Parties Have Filed These Appeals.

Section 43D

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 1112/Mum/2022

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

nature of expenses. Page 3 of 13 2.6 The learned Pr.CIT has erred in law and facts by holding that the conditions of section 36(2) must be followed. 2.7 The learned Pr.CIT has erred in law in concluding that the learned Assessing Officer has not examined the taxability

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Siddivinayaka Property Developers, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes, the C

ITA 207/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 254(2)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERA AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S Siddivinayaka Property Developers, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes, the C

ITA 165/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 254(2)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERA AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

addition of Rs. 2,85,269, under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on the basis that the conditions laid down in section 36(2) of the Act are not satisfied. 6. Meanwhile, the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 21/12/2016, issued under section ... levied a penalty of Rs. 88,155, on the basis that no justification with regard to the satisfaction of conditions laid down under section 36(2) was furnished by the assessee and thus, the assessee has deliberately tried to evade tax. 7. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

write off bad and doubtful debts of rural or non-rural advance under section 36(1)(v) read with the proviso thereunder and section 36(2)(v) of the Act would fail.‖ Thus, it is evident from the above extract that the quantum of deduction arrived at by the assessing

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Chennai vs. Emerald Haven Reality Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 38/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

course of assessment proceedings. The said claim was disallowed by the assessing officer as it was not satisfied the criteria laid down under section 36(2) of the Act, after having found that money lending and banking are not the principal activities of the assessee and they made the advance

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Chennai vs. Emerald Haven Reality Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 37/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Emerald Haven Realty Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

ACIT-Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. D A Finvest P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/S D.A. Finvest Pvt. Room No. 483, 4 Th Floor, Ltd., 65, Mahavir Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, M.K. Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 400 075 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0420B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

that in money lending business, since money constitutes the stock in trade it is not necessary to apply the test laid down in section 36(2)(i) Since the said debt going by the very nature of banking/money lending business is itself a trading debt, therefore an exemption has been ... provided in the second limb of section 36(2)() in respect of such business and therefore, adverse inference could not be drawn against the appellant if failed to prove that the debt had been taken into account in computing the income of the appellant. Finally, it is observed that after

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

including the assessment year 1988-1989, However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in Section 36(2)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindlogix Infotech Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1414/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

ITA No.1255 & 1414/Bang/2017 M/s. Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

M/S Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1255/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

ITA No.1255 & 1414/Bang/2017 M/s. Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Smt Asha Devi Poddar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 687/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

debts. He submitted that the assessee has duly complied with provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and hence claim of the assessee is allowable as bad debts as held in the case of TRF Ltd (323 ITR 397). He further submitted that ... sales of commodities. Secondly, the learned CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act i.e. the assessee has not proved the amount written off as bad debts has been declared as her income

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3873/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A) & Which Was Partly Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

claim observing that the assessee has not furnished any proof regarding its liability as per provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following its decision rendered for Asst. Years

Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1595/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleabhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited V. Pr.Cit -1 Ground Floor, K.K. Tower 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 Abhudaya Bank Lane Aayakar Bhavan Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg M.K. Road Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujle Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujleFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

under section 36(1)(vii) is available in respect of bad debts written off subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified under section 36(2). Section 36(1)(viia) provides for the treatment of provisions for bad and doubtful debts of an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total ... provision has been created prior to 01.04.2006 will be entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) if the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) are satisfied. From the chart as appearing on page 15 it is apparent that the assessee had written off the bad debts amounting

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Future Polyesters Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15

ITA 7557/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 14A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 7023/Mum/2019 (A.Y

Futura Polyesters Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT 5 (1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15

ITA 7024/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Section 14A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 7023/Mum/2019 (A.Y