← 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)

Phenil Sugars Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9523/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

loans advanced during the year, by applying interest rate of 12%. Thus, ultimately, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 85,68,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied upon similar disallowance made in case of the assessee for the A.Ys

Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Central Processsin Centre, Bangalore, Judicial Assessing Officer: WD 21(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(1)

allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is undisputed that the said amount of undisputed that the said amount of Rs.6

DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wanbury Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Wanbury Limited, B Wing, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Circle – 15(3)(1), Bsel Tech Park, Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 30, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Vashi Railway Station, M.K. Road, Vashi, Mumbai - 400020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aabcp5939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 Order Per : Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07.02.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short The Ld. Cit(A)] For Assessment Year 2015-16, Raising Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,29,63,154/-, Without Considering The Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015 Of The Board Regarding Employer'S Contribution To Funds For The Welfare Of Employees In Terms Of Section 43B (B)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

funds which are governed by section contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) of the Act. 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A), Mumbai on the 2. The appellant ... Revenue the only issue of that in the appeal filed by the Revenue the only issue of disallowance of ESI/PF under section 36(1)(va) of ESI/PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income- of ESI/PF under section 36(1

E-Oriental Bank of Commerce( Now Amalgamated With Punjab National Bank- Pnb), New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-07, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 E-Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgamated With Special Range-07 Punjab National Bank-Pnb) New Delhi. Punjab National Bank, Finance Division Plot No. 4, Sector Dwarka, New Delhi- 110 075 Pan Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on total income of Rs. 6483.38 crores by making various additions/disallowances; one such disallowance being under section 36(1)(vii) of Rs. 4545,89,00,000/-. 4. The assessee agitated the said disallowance under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act before ... accounts where the provisions was created in respect of any financial year. 3. The assessee should also take into consideration the provisions of section 36(1)(vila) which pertain to provisions created for bad and doubtful debts. Out of these provisions the assessee should have culled out the provisions made

Dipak Kanti Mazumder, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1040/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1040/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kanti Mazumder Asst. Director Of Income Tax, 43, Raja S.C. Mallick Road Vs Cpc, Bengaluru West Bengal - 700084 [Pan : Aevpm3879E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 165 Days & Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & We Find That The Delay Was On Account Of Not Following Up Of The E-Mail Id By The Assessee On Which The First Appellate Order Was Received. However, When The Assessee Was Apprised Of The Same By His Authorized Representative, He Immediately Took Steps For Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Considering The Same & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxmann.com 178 (SC), dealing with this issue has settled down the controversy deciding in favour of the revenue holding that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) is a must to claim deduction and provisions of Section 43B of the Act cannot be applied on employees

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

claim of payment on account of employees' contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates given in the respective Acts as given in section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim which needs to be disallowed/adjusted even within the scope of prima facie dispute under section 143(1). Therefore, disallowance ... 412/CHD/2022 K. Subject to above discussion and in view of the CBDT circular No. 22/2015, in the light of the interpretation of section 36(1)(va) made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and the decision of various ITAT regarding applicability

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and

ITA 964/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

excess can be claimed. Since there is no excess amount, the write off is not allowable. He relied on Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii). 14. Before the ClIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful dets u/s. 36(1)(viia) is applicable only ... case for AYs 2013-14 relied on the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relates to rural branch advances only but failed to the consider the later amendments and clarification issued by the Finance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 963/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

excess can be claimed. Since there is no excess amount, the write off is not allowable. He relied on Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii). 14. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful dets u/s. 36(1)(viia) is applicable only ... case for AYs 2013-14 relied on the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relates to rural branch advances only but failed to the consider the later amendments and clarification issued by the Finance

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 877/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

excess can be claimed. Since there is no excess amount, the write off is not allowable. He relied on Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii). 14. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful dets u/s. 36(1)(viia) is applicable only ... case for AYs 2013-14 relied on the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relates to rural branch advances only but failed to the consider the later amendments and clarification issued by the Finance

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 876/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

excess can be claimed. Since there is no excess amount, the write off is not allowable. He relied on Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii). 14. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful dets u/s. 36(1)(viia) is applicable only ... case for AYs 2013-14 relied on the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. that section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relates to rural branch advances only but failed to the consider the later amendments and clarification issued by the Finance

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajinderkaur Sarabjitsingh Bagai L/H Rajvit Bagai, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

late payment of PF/ESI at sr.no.20(b) and 26(B) and the AO has to simply disallow such amounts in terms of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The argument of the appellant that the issue is debatable is therefore not tenable. The ingredients ... Appellant, the same are distinguishable on facts especially after the amendments vide Finance Act 2021 inserting Explanation 2 and Explanation 5 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B respectively making it amply clear that the law never intended that delayed payments of Employee's contribution (as per the relevant Acts

C. Doctor & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off on the

ITA 5654/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 139Section 143

made by the Assessing Office and confirmed by the CIT (A) by looking at the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r/w Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Now this issue is squarely covered against the Assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

Shreeomsingh Bhagwansingh Rawat, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shreeomsingh Bhagwansingh The Dy.Cit Rawat Vs Circle-1(1)(1) 905/6, Gidc Makarpura Vadodara Vadodara 390 010 Pan: Aampr 5475 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B.Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/04/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B.Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., ( Now Known As Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1298/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

account of delayed payment of contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 8,96,190/- despite such deduction being contrary to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., ( Now Known As Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1297/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

account of delayed payment of contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 8,96,190/- despite such deduction being contrary to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Javi Systems India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2862/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 34Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

have been made u/s 143(1) of the Act as the issue was debatable. Moreover, the amendment was made w.e.f. 1.4.2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements. He submitted ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1 )(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Protoviti India Mmember P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Most Of The Employees’ Contributions To Pf & Esi Account Have Been Paid Within The Due Date, However, In Some Cases The Delay

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

short ‘the Act’) ITA Nos.2958 & 2959/Del/2022 AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 2. The grounds raised relate to disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide intimation dated 2nd March, 2020 under section 143(1) of the Act on delayed deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund