“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)

Protiviti India Member P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2958/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh

Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

provision, there can be no escape from disallowance. Turning to the facts of the case, it is clear from the mandate of section 36(1)(va) that the employees’ share in the relevant funds must be deposited before the due date under the respective Acts. If the audit report mentions ... with specific reference in column no. 20(b) having heading: `Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)’, it is an apparent indication of the disallowance of expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) in the audit report in a case where

Zhongfu Mobile P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Oppo Mobiles (Telangana) P.Ltd), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 1536/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Il & Fs Energy Development Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2900/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

loan obtained and interest paid. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee has successfully discharged the onus cast upon it by provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. It would be pertinent to mention here that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y 2013-14, the matter

Il & Fs Energy Development Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2899/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Tiger 4 India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 378/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

APPELLANT Appellant had deposited the Employees' contributions to PF and ESI with the relevant Authorities within the due dates as prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER LEARNED CIT (A) Employees' Contribution to Sustained the additions ... funds since these were deposited within due dates specified under Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. h. However, additions under Section 36(1)(va) on account of employees' contribution to the said fund were sustained by the Ld CIT (A) holding that Employer has statutory obligation

Tiger 4 India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 377/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Warangal vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 416/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

thereby making the total income at Rs. 125,79,27,870/- by confirming the issue of disallowance of claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to Rs. 3,27,34,353/-. Thereafter, the department went in a second appeal before the ITAT and the Co-ordinate ... total income at Rs. 148,66,41,870/- thereby making addition of Rs. 22,87,14,000/- on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In the assessment order, learned Assessing Officer noted that the assessee debited total provisions

Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 48/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,...................Appellant 10, West Ghosh Para Lane, Jagatdal, 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcj8598E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 48/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.,.........................Appellant 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aakcs1284P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107

Section 143(1)Section 263

that day. The ld. Commissioner was examining on that day whether the disallowance not made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(va) was prejudicial to the interest of revenue or not. The Hon’ble High Court was examining the correctness of the view formulated

Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 105/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd.……........................…...……………....Appellant 3Rd Floor, 113/F, Maheshwartola Road, Kolkata – 700046. [Pan: Aaccn9754F] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (Appeals) Was Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 11,76,344/- Made By A.O. At Cpc On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To P.F. & Esi While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) When In Fact Entire The Sum Was Paid Within The Due Dates Specified Under The Relevant Statues & Wrong Mention Of Dates In Tax Audit Report Were Duly Brought To The Notice Of Ld. Cit (Appeals).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80J

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 776/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Section 143(1)Section 263

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 14A

debts in AY 2013-14. [(from the order of the CIT(A)] 10. The provision of deduction towards bad debt is contained in Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act which provides hereunder: “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof

ACIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8688/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, Special Range-7, Accounts & Audit New Delhi Department, Bank House 1St Floor, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacp1206G Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Ground No.2 & 4 are interconnected and with respect to the disallowance of contribution to Punjab & Sind Bank Employees Pension Fund Trust under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act r.w. Rule 87 & 88 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee ... However AO did not agree with the submissions made by assessee as he was of the view that as per the provision of Section 36(1)(iv) r.w.r 87 & 88 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the contribution to employee's pension Fund can be allowed only as ordinary annual

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4143/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37

your ready reference. The allowability of interest depends on whether it has been used for the purpose of business as provided in section 36(1)(iii). In the order the AO has no dispute on this account. Hence the interest expenditure which is incurred on loans for the purpose ... proposition that no businessman need be compelled to maximize his profit. 26. In view of these facts and the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii), we concur with the order of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no basis for impugned disallowance. Disallowance of Rs. 25 crore

M/S. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3714/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37

Chaudhry Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CPC Bangalore DCIT - 20(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 217/MUM/2022[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C.V. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

inter- Chaudhry Industries M.A. no.14/Mum./2024 ITA no.217/Mum./2022 alia, after making disallowance of Rs. 5,55,728, under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the disallowance made under section 36(1 ... breakup of the amount paid towards employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC and submitted that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be restricted only to employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that these details

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaltata International Ltd., Block A, Shivsagar Estates Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018, Pan: Aaact3198F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit – 7(3), R. No. 675, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Ld. DR

Section 144CSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

respect of capital borrowed by the Appellant for the purposes of its business and hence claimed by the Appellant as deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). 2.2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing ground, the Appellant submits that the learned AO-DRP, not having controverted the evidence ... other purposes of the Appellant's business and (c) That, accordingly, the Interest of Rs. 1, 65, 35,000/- was allowable under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that the learned AO-DRP erred in this respect in not following the binding order of this

Orrionstars Innovattes P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 143Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Court has held as under :- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

Orrionstars Innovates Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 155/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 143Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B