← 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)

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM And

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM And

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM And

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM And

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 293/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(2)

aforesaid reasoning ultimately disallowed the amount of Rs.1,50,11,871/- on account of “interest not recoverable” as per the provision of section 36(2) of the Act and consequently added back the same to the business income of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition ... taxation in earlier year and the same has been written off in the year has remained no substantiated. The condition laid down in section 36(2) of the Act is not specified. Therefore, the AO was justified to disallow interest irrecoverable of Rs.1,50,11,871/- u/s. 36(2

Hnj Stock Broking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 292/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R
Section 250Section 36(2)

taxation in earlier year and the same has been written off in the year has remained no substantiated. The condition laid down in section 36(2) of the Act are not specified. Therefore, the AO was justified to disallow interest irrecoverable of Rs. 1,23,78,105/- u/s. 36(2 ... types of advances, including advances made by rural branches; (viia) in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by— …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… “Section 36(2) (2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following provisions shall apply— (i) no such deduction shall be allowed unless

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Patson Agro Exports Private Limited, Pune City

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT
Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

write-off as bad debt:-  The amount has been taken into account in computing the Income of the Assessee in any preceding years (section 36(2)(i)  It has been written off in the books of accounts of the Assessee. The Appellant has referred to the decision of SUPREME COURT ... applicable here. From the details given by the Assessee it clear that the following amounts do not satisfy the criteria of the section 36(2)(i) of the Income-Tax Act:- Sr No Head Name Description Amount 2 Advance to supplier Bafna Motors supplier 71,341 Pvt. Ltd 13 Advance

M/S Sab Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle II, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1168/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1168/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Sab Industries Ltd. Acit Sco No. 49-50, Sector 26 Central Circle-Ii, बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-5078-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca)- Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 22-06-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 08-07-2016. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.22.97 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) and Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written ... proviso to section 36(1)(vi) will relate to cases covered under section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit the benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while, under section 36

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 15 availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision ... proviso to section 36(1)(vi) will relate to cases covered under section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit the benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while, under section 36

Origin Foods Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Ward 5(1) Che, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl
Section 133(6)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant did not full fill the requirements of Section 36(1) (vil) read with Section 36 (2) (1) and Para 9.4 of Circular No. 12 dated 30/05/2016. 3. The Appellant submits that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income ... based on facts and it is submitted that the appellant had fulfilled all the requirements of Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The Appellant submits that a sum of Rs. 9,43,47.085/- was due from M/s Prakash Vanijya

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahasang Haryana, Faridabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh/Faridabad

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

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

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

ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Infin Services Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69C

income for tax under the head income from business and profession. The bad debts written off duly fulfil the conditions stipulated in section 36(2) i.e. it has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year or in any earlier year in which ... NSEL through its own sources and submitted evidences of the same. Further, the bad debt written off duly fulfil the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) of the Act and submitted copies of contract notes of the transactions in evidence of the same. The assessee further submitted Page

Mr, Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani, Pune vs. ACIT Central Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 978/PUN/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.978/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year". Section 36(2)(i) also provides that no such bad debt deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income

Mayurply Industries Pvt Ltd., Hooghly, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Guwahati, Assam

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

224/GTY/2024 Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 10-11, 12-13 to 17-18, 18-19 the income of previous year, as required by section 36(2) is also factually and legally incorrect. This point has been discussed in detail in this order, how income of the debts written ... taken into account in the previous year or in earlier assessment years and that conditions of section 36(2) are fully satisfied in this case. 12.3 Reason (iv) in the proposed order of learned Accountant Member is not based on any material on record. It has been the case

Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the orders of the ld

ITA 289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,19,02,269/- comprising without appreciating the fact that the same is clearly allowable under section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice ... Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt. Limited, Mumbai contented that as per the provisions of section 36(2) r.w section 36(1)(vii) of the Act ,any bad debt or part thereof representing money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending is allowable as deduction

Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the orders of the ld

ITA 288/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,19,02,269/- comprising without appreciating the fact that the same is clearly allowable under section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice ... Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt. Limited, Mumbai contented that as per the provisions of section 36(2) r.w section 36(1)(vii) of the Act ,any bad debt or part thereof representing money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending is allowable as deduction

Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the orders of the ld

ITA 287/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,19,02,269/- comprising without appreciating the fact that the same is clearly allowable under section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.The learned CIT (A) 54, Mumbai erred in confirming the Act of the Ld. AO of issuing notice ... Tutor Investment and Finance Pvt. Limited, Mumbai contented that as per the provisions of section 36(2) r.w section 36(1)(vii) of the Act ,any bad debt or part thereof representing money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending is allowable as deduction

Aha Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4344/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Aha Holdings Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 403, Income Tax, New Udyog Mandir, Vs. Circle-6(1)(1), No. 2, Mogul Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 016. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aafcs6404E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe For Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Ellora Construction Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2163/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Ellora Construction Private Limited Dcit, Circle 1, Cidco Road, Azad Chowk, Vs. Aurangabad Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aawca7578C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)

books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfils the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub section 36(2) of the Act. 4.3.2 The conditions laid down in IT Act, 1961 u/s 36(2) should be fulfilled before any allowance for bad debts ... appellant 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. 4.3.3 As per the provisions of sub sec. (v) of sec. 36(2), where such debt or part of debt relates