“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)

Dignus Services, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 117/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.116 & 117/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Dignus Services, Ito, Cb-358, 3Rd Floor, Ring Road, Vs. Ward 29(6), Naraina, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No Aanfd4934F. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Dignus Services, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 29(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 116/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Makson Health Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/Accit-1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 35/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing proportionate interest under section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That ... 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

Makson Healh Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/ACIT1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 34/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni, Katni vs. J.P Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

assessee's business purposes and therefore, interest at the rate of 18% on loans to that extent, is an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Consequently, we hold so. (ii) So far as the loans raised in the previous years i.e. assessment years ... therefore, payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the brought forward balance of loans was also an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(ii); Consequently, we hold so. 23. We further are of the view that every businessman has its own way to conduct the business. One cannot

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Katni, Katni vs. J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

Ultra Clean and Care Services P Ltd., Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/JAB/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee is devoid of natural justice should be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that explanation added to section 36(1)(va) w.e.f.01.04.2021 shall have retrospective operation. The explanation creates a liability and specifically made operative from Assessment Year 2021-22 cannot have retrospective operation ... That section 36(1)(va) and section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.8 & 9/Jab/2023 Ultra Clean and care Ser vices P.Ltd. 6. The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds

Ultra Clean and Care Services P Ltd., Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/JAB/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S A R Transport, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer, Satna

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

ITA 16/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date of filling of the Income Tax Return and is to be allowed as per the proviso of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of I.T. Act, 1961, respectively. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provision of section ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the fact that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, Satna vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Cir, Satna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

ITA 15/JAB/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

assessee is devoid of natural justice should be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that explanation added to section 36(1)(va) w.e.f.01.04.2021 shall have retrospective operation. The explanation creates a liability and specifically made operative from Assessment Year 2021- 22 cannot have retrospective operation ... That section 36(1)(va) and section 43B and conflicting and ambiguous. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the assessee. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds the CPC and CIT Appeal is not justified in disallowing the employers contribution that is covered by section43(B). The disallowance

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, Satna vs. Asstt.Commissinor of Income Tax Circle, Satna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-

ITA 14/JAB/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee had claimed interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The interest was paid on the loan which the assessee had utilized for purchasing some IPL shares ... amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the case before the Court was not in respect of the capital borrowed by the assessee. It was further pointed

Kewal Kiran Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1532/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1532/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Kewal Kiran Enterprises, B-101, Synthofine Estate, Opp. Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaafk-2525-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-41(1)(1) Office No.425, 4Th Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ragnyi Saraf Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 28Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appea,l the assessee claimed bad debts written off under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of loans advanced to following two parties: 3 Party Name Total Amount Principal Amount Interest Amount

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Falee Bilimoria &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

reference to "due date" in the second proviso to section 43B was to have the same meaning as provided in the explanation to section 36(1) (va). Parliament therefore, through this amendment, sought to provide for identity in treatment of the two kinds of payments: those made as contributions ... 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

Rajaram Shankarlal Sonagra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

account of PF/ESIC made after the 3 Rajaram ShankarlalSonagra due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... 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

Shri Siddhesh Kumar Gaur, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, Circle-3, Bengaluru / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances made by the learned assessing officer under section 143(1) making the disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that even if the employees contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable ... 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

Atul Ahuja, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

Accordingly, ground no. 2 is allowed for

ITA 2858/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 44A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND

The ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/IND/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcb2304E Revenue By Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, Ars Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 36(1)(va)

appeal: “The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs.2,09,59,201/- under section 36(1)(va) while ignoring the legislative intent whereby the employer is required to deposit the employee's contribution by the date prescribed ... 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

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 76/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before ... made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va). That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

were not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the PF and ESI Act, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances made in respective assessment years are to the tune of Rs.10,97,693/- and Rs.33,54,760/-. Contesting ... welfare of such employees” (emphasis supplied) 4. The deduction of the said income is provided in ‘Section 36 – Other deductions’ wherein section 36(1)(va)of the Act provides as under:- “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt