“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)

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

retention money retained by the contractee Add: Disallowance u/s. As per 4.2 of AO’s Rs. 19,40,67,731/- order Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) Rs. 1,08,85,080/- r.w. section 2(24)(x) Total assessed income Rs. 30,92,31,440/- 4.1 The AO negatived

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 4,40,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer and directed him to allow the same under section 36(1)(iti) of the Income-tax Act." In Para 7.9, the Ld. DR has made reference to para 10 of Hon'ble Tribunal's order

Matrix Clothing Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 8183/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 36(2)Section 80J

business loss under section 28 accepting the plea raised before him that the said amount is allowable under section 28(i) read with section 36(1)(vii) as normal business loss. The Revenue challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal which reversed the findings ... amount as bad debt in the profit and loss account. It was submitted that the loss is allowable under section 28(i) r.w. section 36(1)(vii) or 37(1) as a normal business loss. Support was derived from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madnani Development Corporation

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

statement of income while working out the taxable income. As per the provisions of the Act, bad debt is allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) only if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books account in the previous year in which claim for deduction was made

Zenith Weldaids Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Comissioner of Income Tax Appeal (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical

ITA 3536/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyazenith Weldaids Pvt. Ltd. Cit(Nfac) Vs. C-164, Bs Road, Industrial Delhi Area, Ghaziabad-201 003 Pan No. Aaacz 0626 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, C.A. & Shri Ankit Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. for the proposed ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

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

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

ITA 875/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru Dcit Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore Pan No.Aabct5589K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 27.9.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Is Bad Is Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Remanding The Issue Back To The Ao For Verification. 2.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Having Observed In His Order That All The Details Required To Comply With The Directions Of Itat Has Been Furnished By The Assessee Bank, Ought Not Have Remanded Back The Issue Again To Ao For Verification, Instead Of Allowing The Appeal In Favor Of The Assessee Bank. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Not Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Learned Assessing Officer.: Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 2 Of 6 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is Beyond The Directions Given By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

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

remand this issue back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purpose of verifying that the amount of claim under section 36(1)(vii) should be limited to the amount written off in the books of account (*) i.e provision for bad debts debited ... account and reduced from sundry advances account. It may not be out of place to mention here that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are independent of each other and the Assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in addition to the amount of deduction

Nishant Security and Allied Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(3), Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1446/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nishant Security & Allied Vs. Ito Services Private Limited Ward- 18 (3) Wz-98, A/1, Ring Road, Delhi Naraina, New Delhi-110028 Pan No.Aaccn3644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Application Respondent By Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 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

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowable without appreciating that the corresponding borrowed funds have been utilized for business purpose and therefore the same is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The conclusion drawn by the Pr. CIT is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and provision ... expenditure and (b) the corresponding borrowed funds have been utilized for business purpose and therefore the same is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act The conclusion drawn by the Pr CIT ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1227/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. The Hindustan Times Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 18-20, Kg Marg, New Delhi Circle-16(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact4962F M/S. The Hindustan Times Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 18-20, Kg Marg, New Delhi Circle-16(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact4962F

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

misconceived as apparently no income at all could be offered thereon. The entire issue being looked into from the perspective of provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the revenue , per se, is not correct in the instant case. What is to be seen is whether

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1226/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 6512/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

M/S. the Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11

ITA 1629/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Agilent Technologies India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2746/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraagilent Technologies India P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, New Delhi. Plot No.8, District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aabca9874A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)Section 9(2)

Rs.27,75,178/- on account of SAD Protest payment). The order u/s 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 read with section 36(1) of KVAT Act, 2003 was passed by the Assistant 3 Commissioner of Audit 5(2) VO-5, Bangalore on 28-06-2019 and order granting refund

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2309/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

parties, it is observed that the moot question involved in the additional ground is whether the due date prescribed under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act is ‘whether from the close of the month for which wages are payable’ or ‘the month ... evident that the Hon’ble Madras High Court has cleared the ambiguity in interpreting the “due date” for the purpose of provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On this observation, the arguments of the ld. AR fails and we are, therefore, inclined to dismiss the additional ground

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mum

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

ITA 2308/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2307/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nandanbala Commercials Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesse is also dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One Bkc, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 Bkc, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavcs1575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: HM Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(ii)

Appellant has paid interest thereon. Funds were borrowed for business purpose only i.e. purchase of land. Appellant fulfills all the three conditions of section 36(1)(iii) meaning that interest cost is duly allowable u/s.36(1)(ii) of Act. c) Appellant was in the process of purchase of land ... No.1134/Mum/2023 CO 67/Mum/2023 DCIT 13(2)(2) Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Pvt. Ltd. unwarranted and the same qualifies to be allowed under section 36(1)(i)/section 37(1)" c) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gorwara Plastic & General Inds. (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ 329 has also

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

ITA 4980/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I