← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

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).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

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. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

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.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

Amsal Chem Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen, (CIT- DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

Checkmate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (SC) (143 taxmann.com 178), held that in view of the specific provisions of section 36(1)(va)r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act, the Employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC not paid by the due date under relevant Acts ... allowability of deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee had failed in fulfilling the condition of Section 36(1) (va) of the Act. The decision of Hon'ble ITAT Calcutta Bench was not applicable after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

Subodh Kumar Agarwal, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bangalore

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

ITA 754/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Subodh Kumar Agarwal Dy. Cit, Cpc Bengalore, 204, 2Nd Floor, Shokeen Plaza, Karnataka - 560 500 Vs. Plot No. 3, Pocket 7, Dwarka, Sector 12, New Delhi – 110 075 Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 7184 J (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 250

above way, no account should be considered to be disallowable under the provisions of section 43B of the Act read with section 36(1)(va). 9. THAT in the case of Fluid Air (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1997] 63 ITD 182 (Mumbai) it was held that the provisions ... section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Act, should be interpreted liberally, that ambiguity regarding interpretation of words "fifteen days from the close of the month" in clause 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, ought to be decided in favour of the assessee and finally that

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2016, made certain additions/disallowances to the returned income of the assessee company, viz. (i) disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution towards ... appellant as an employer from his employees for the purpose of PF/ESIC, if it is paid beyond the due date as mentioned in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. While resolving the issue, the AO has considered the provisions of section 36 (1)(va) while the appellant has considered

Dondapati Sudhakara Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

ITA 701/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee vide intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2021, after, inter alia, making the aforesaid addition/disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act was determined at Rs. 50,83,778/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without ... parte order. The CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O., upheld the addition/disallowance made by him under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter

Appt Fashion, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)(b)Section 43B

before the due date as a condition for deduction". 7.3 In view of retrospective amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, and the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. VS Commissioner of Income ... made by AO, CPC, for not depositing of employee's contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of "the Act" but paid to the respective funds after the due dates as specified by rules of relevant funds are correctly held

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee was allowable as a deduction u/s.43B of the Act; or the same was liable to be disallowed as per mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, therefore, the same could not have been summarily disallowed by the CPC, Bengaluru while processing the return ... contributions towards ESI & EPF by the assessee-employer, could have summarily been held by the A.O, as the assessee’s income under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act while processing his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act,.? 8. As is discernable from

The Karnataka State Cooperative Agriculture and Development Bank Limited, Banglaore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

fund for Rs. 3,12,323/- was deposited after due date and therefore the same was proposed to bring to tax as per section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In absence of any reply from the assessee, the sum of Rs. 3,12,323/- was treated as income ... further observed that a sum of ₹3,12,232/- relating to delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to welfare funds was rightly disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee had admitted the disallowance but contended that the same should be considered while computing deduction under section

Fairchem Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Cir-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarfairchem Organics Acit Circle - Limited 15(1)(1), 253/P & 312, Village Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. Chekhala, Sanand K. Road, Churchgate, Kadi Highway, Taluka Mumbai-400 020 Sanand, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382 115. Pan/Gir No. Aadcf6900E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ankit Tiwari, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

income at Rs. 35,39,29,360/- by making an addition of Rs. 68,14,949/- on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the balance sheet that the assessee had made ... demonstrate commercial expediency in granting such advances and also failed to establish nexus between own funds and advances. Relying upon the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed. 25. Ground No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 26. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the assessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be computed before computing the deduction

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed. 25. Ground No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 26. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the assessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be computed before computing the deduction

Vividoddesh Prathamika Grameena Krushi Sahakar Sangha Niyamit Hirur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2197/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) is misplaced. The said decision was rendered in the context of allowability of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and dealt with the requirement of strict compliance with the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes. The issue involved

Rasna Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 926/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Addl. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition Made By The Ao, Thereby Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 38

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Unique Bangles, Mumbai

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

ITA 7427/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

under section 68 on account of unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits – Rs. 47,13,589/-. 4 Unique Bangles 3. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to provident fund – Rs. 2,480/-. 5. While making the disallowance under section ... justified and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 47,13,589/-. 6 Unique Bangles 9. However, with regard to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 2,480/-, the CIT(A) recorded that no specific submission was made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings

Welkin Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm of Income Tax, CC 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5070/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of the real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property. Further, single bench ... wrong interpretation of law and therefore, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) is not in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is into the business of Real Estate Development

Welkin Deveopers, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Comm. of Income Tax, CC 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5069/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (supra) held that setting up of business is enough for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii). It was further held that commencement of the real estate business starts with the acquisition of land or immovable property. Further, single bench ... wrong interpretation of law and therefore, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the interest expenditure by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) is not in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is into the business of Real Estate Development

Denso International India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6688/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Denso International India Private Ld. Dcit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor,Mohan C.R. Building, Delhi. Cooperative Estate,Delhi. Pan No.Aabcd1103D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

submission that the Checkmate Services case (supra) drew a clear distinction between the provisions of section 43B of the Act and section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It was argued by 2 the Ld. AR that the Checkmate Services case (supra) pertained to the employees’ contribution ... such contribution before the due date of filing the return of income,as against this the contribution of the employees is governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On this the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly directed that such contributions should be deposited in the Government Account

Bhumi Polymers Private Limited, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 755/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 755/Rjt/2025

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

ACIT-19(3), 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

debts of Rs.3,61,20,866/- in books of accounts. With respect to the claim of bad debts, the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are reproduced hereunder: “Section 36(1)(vii) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof ... include any provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the accounts of the assesse" On perusal of the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii), it is observed that Bad Debts of a business are allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) which inter alia provides

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhalia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cicle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Bombay Minerals Limited, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

erred in deleting the the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) without ... erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the under section 36(1