“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)

Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Durg vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

36(va) Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 amendment was from 01.04.2021 effective from A.Y.2022-23, hence, Explanation 2 is prospective amendment to provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 by inserting Explanation 2 was prospective in nature and was applicable only from

M/S Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4803/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

have been made out of interest-free funds. This principle has repeatedly been affirmed in the context of disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and allied provisions. In the present case, the position is even clearer, inasmuch as there are virtually only interest-free funds

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Jasper Industries Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1357/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

appreciate that the appellant has not diverted any interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investments in equity shares and that disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable. Reliance is placed on the ITAT order for AY 2016–17, wherein similar facts were adjudicated in favour of the appellant ... Ld.CIT(A) to deal with the issue of disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act deals with deduction towards interest paid on borrowed capital. In case loans borrowed for the purpose of business are not utilized

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

directions in this regard. b) making disallowance of INR 34,35,859 towards delay in deposit of employees contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return

Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga

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

ITA 34/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR

enjoying status of NBFC. Moreover, in the case before Hon’ble Madras High Court, the claim of the assessee was in relation to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on ITA Nos.33 & 34/PAT/2019 SamastipurKshetriya Gramin Bank; AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 account of Provision for bad and doubtful debts ... section 36(1)(vii) of the Act clearly prohibits allowability of a mere Provision for bad and doubtful debts. It is in this context the Hon’ble High Court noted that the precise conditions contained in section 36(1)(vii) of the Act would govern the situation

Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga

ITA 33/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO’s 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to 3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO's 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Dcie Circle-2(1)(1), Ahemdabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO's 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 37Section 41(1)

case of Desouza Hotels Ltd (supra) where it is held that – 21. The comparison between the pre amendment and post amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) shows that prior to the amendment the assessee was required to establish that the debt in question had become bad in the previous year ... assessee to prove that the debt written off by him is indeed bad debt for the purpose of allowing it under Section 36(1)(vii). The assessee therein had claimed writing of bad debt in the sum of Rs.4,59,60,393/-. The contention of the assessee was that

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1439/PUN/2024[AY2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

case and in law Ld. CIT has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 6,75,072/- by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961, being ESIC contribution of AY 2019-20, by rejecting the appellant's contention. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1438/PUN/2024[AY2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kol-72. Pan No. : Aabck1255F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 09.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of ₹99906480. The Assessee Subsequently Filed A Revised Return Declaring The Same Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Served. In Response, The Assessee Filed Audited Financial Statements, Computation Of Income, Details Of Receipts & Expenses & Explanations As Called For. From The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

been deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Invoking section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va), the AO added the delayed deposit to the total income of the assessee. The AO further observed from the financial statements that