“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)

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

accounts was out of the interest income, which was offered to tax in the earlier years and hence the condition laid down in Section 36(2) r.w. 36(1)(vii) of the Act was met. Though having observed so, the AO is noted to have subsequently held that the impugned ... assessee to establish that the debts become bad in the previous year under consideration for claiming the same as deduction. 8.9 As per section 36(2)(i) of the Act, in order to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the precondition is that the debt

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

Pradeep Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1522/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

assessee is obliged to prove to the AO that the case satisfies the ingredients of section 36(1)(vii) as well as section 36(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The language of section 36(1) (vii) of the Act is unambiguous and does not admit of two interpretations ... thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. This benefit is subject only to section 36(2) of the Act. It is obligatory upon the assessee to prove to the AO that the case satisfies the ingredients of section 36

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. Padmavathi V., Hospet

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2102/BANG/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44A

assessment order Page 6 of 9 appears to be incorrect application of law, since it fails to meet the requirements of section 36(2) of the Act. 6.5 As regards the view of the AO that the books of account have not been audited u/s 44AB of the Act, this ... write off on account of the said lapse on the part of the appellant but on account of the non- compliance of section 36(2) Act. It is also to be noted that the AO, in the same proceedings has allowed the claim of bad debts in the case

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

write off of staff advances of Rs.1,47,659/- .To allow a claim of bad debts, one of the conditions laid down in sections 36(2) of the Act is that the debt should have been taken into account while computing the income of the assessee. The staff advances

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act are subject to the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act. The clause (v) of section 36(2) of the Act provides that the assessee, to which section 36(1)(viia ... debts account made under clause (viia) of section 36(1) and referred to in proviso to clause (vii) of section 36(1) and section 36(2)(v) applies to all types of advances, whether rural or other advances. It has also been interpreted that there are separate accounts in respect

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Sicom Investments & Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5669/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Indian Potash Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 4578/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarindian Potash Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) Dcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Indian Potash Limited, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.88,67,868/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Pos Machine. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,55,840/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Sap License. 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,71,46,262/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Bad Debt Claimed On Which The Company Is Not Eligible For Taking The Benefit Of Claiming Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Norms Set By The Ministry Of Chemical & Fertilizers.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

36(1)(vii) of the Act against which income offered in same financial year 2017-18 by misconstruing the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act that income against said bad debts should be offered in earlier previous years only without appreciating that section 36(2) clearly states that ... establish that debts were actually became bad and written off during the year without appreciating the fact that there is no requirement under section 36(2) to prove that debts were actually became bad. 3. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 4. With

Indian Potash Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, New Delhi

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

ITA 4113/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

observations made during the Revenue Audit on non-compliance by the assessee of certain conditions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and in the Zuari Estate case, the assessee has not included certain transaction of property sale in its ITR whereas the assessee

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Macrotech Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by

ITA 1486/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

claimed the said amount as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. However, the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled. Specifically, section 36(2) requires that in order for a debt to be allowed as a bad debt ... assessing officer disallowed the provisions of advances under section 36(1)(vii) by taking view that assessee does not fulfilled the addition of section 36(2). Moreover, the assessee has not actually written off bad debt but merely a provision of as evident in the books of account. The assessee

Macrotech Developers Limited (Mdl), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by

ITA 1272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Macrotech Developers Limited (Mdl) Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Vs Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Acit – Cc – 7(3), Mumbai Macrotech Developers Private Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

accepting the returned loss. Audit objections were raised regarding non-fulfilment of conditions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act basis which the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated [on the other hand, in the present case, proceedings under section

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

card business has been accepted as business income by the ld. AO. The satisfaction of requirement of offering of income in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act has been done by the assessee in the instant case. Hence, if any of the debts in respect of income already

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Santosh Shivaji Lad, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

these advances in any financial year, indicating that the assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act, and thus, could not be claimed as bad debts. 5.1 Similarly, the AO observed that the assessee had declared interest income