“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)

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under the clause (vii a) of section 36 (1), was Rs. 16.89 crore. Thus, bad debts of Rs. 39.43 crore claimed during the AY 2018-19 was to be restricted to Rs. 22.54 crore (Rs. 39.43 crore ... redemption premium, was not verifiable. 7. It was further noted that a deduction of Rs 9.19 crore was claimed for rural advances under. Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act but no details of advances made by the rural branches were furnished in the financial statement. In absence of such

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 87/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 115VSection 36(1)

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

Harman Finochem Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Circle14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and the appeal by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad

Section 2(24)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) upheld the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act due to delayed payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C.). Therefore ... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal was regarding the disallowance on account of alleged delay in payment of P.F. under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal following its earlier decision

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2262/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

decided in favour of the assessee. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) erred in not appreciating the facts and law that amendments in section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards i.e., prospectively ... 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

Barron Plastics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1381/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

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

Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Rs.11,09,807/- on account of duties and cess and thereby made the total addition of Rs.22,67,620/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed ... assessee contended that both AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have made/confirmed the addition of Rs.22,67,620/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without going into the detail brought on record by the assessee rather employer’s contribution to PF & ESIC has also been disallowed

Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-1) Cir 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 2554/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee for the reason that the interest is paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The CIT(A) further relied on the order of his predecessor for A.Ys 2008-09 & 2009-10 where a similar disallowance

DCIT (OSD-I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2311/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

during the FY 2016-17 was Rs 22.37 crore which includes Rs 5.48 crore for provisions against standard assets. Since the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable for bad and doubtful debts only, provisions made against standard assets are to be excluded while computing deduction allowable u/s 36 ... head business and profession during the relevant assessment year. Having done so, the Appellant duly claimed a deduction of Rs. 39.58 crores under Section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act being provision for bad and doubtful debts created for the year AY 2017-18. Thereafter, during the assessment proceedings

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 899/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

tune of Rs.45,66,608/- and Rs.1,43,210/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) respectively under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the act on the ground that the assessee has failed to deposit the employees’ contribution ... employer’s qua employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC after due date prescribed under the relevant Act is not allowable deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, the operative findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under: “51. The analysis

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 897/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

Anchor Offshore Services Limited, Mahim West Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 911/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sh. Ashol Kr. Ambastha

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

PF/ESIC deducted but deposited in respective funds, after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, are not allowable as deductions 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 ... Anchor Offshore Services Ltd. 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

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2003[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 15Section 37(2)Section 46Section 58B

allowed in the earlier years since the same was in excess of the limits specified under Section 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act, has gone uncontroverted in the appellate proceedings before us. Therefore, we concur with the reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue ... Section 28 of the Act. Alternatively, it was contended by the Assessee that Assessee should be allowed deduction for the aforesaid amount under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being bad debts. In this regard, the Assessee relied upon Circular dated 27/04/1992, issued by CBDT. 14.2 The Assessing Officer

Reloy Shield Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

provide certainty and rationalize the above provision, following amendment has been made in the Act through Finance Act 2021: a. Explanation to section 36(1)(va) has been added to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and I.T.A. No. 972/Del/2023 deemed to never have been applied ... Annexure-I. 6. On merit that both on the facts and in law, no part of the said amount is disallowable under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act as a same has been paid before due date of filing return of income. 7. We carve leave

M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Cans Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1481/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Sri Venkateswara Vs. Assistant Director Of Cans Private Limited Income Tax, Cpc, B Building, Unit No. 5, Income Tax Department, Tejpal Industrial Estate, Centralised Processing Andheri Kurla Road, Centre, Bangalore Sakinaka, Andheri 560500 Mumbai – 400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5704R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Radhakant Saraf Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 09.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Radhakant SarafFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

towards employer's contribution towards PF & ESIC and thereby the employer's contribution to PF & ESIC is outside the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance ... Rs.8,06,041/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the AO on account of delayed payment without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes employer's contribution and is therefore covered by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act and therefore allowable as deduction

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed 17 ITA 2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) - Ground No.13 26. The Ld.AR in this regard submitted that the entire amount as mentioned in the tax audit report has been disallowed. However, the Ld.AR submitted

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

Welgrow Hotels Concepts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Welgrow Hotels Concepts P. Ltd., Vs Ito, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Ward-27(1), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.436/Del/2023 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048179868(1) Dated 22.12.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 154 R.W.S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 02.12.2020 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 27(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution Of Provident Fund & Employee State Insurance In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Revenue by observing 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

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 2051/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

disallowance of Rs. 1,22,36,776/- by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, admittedly the contribution to the provident fund received from the employees have been made after the due date which is evident from the details incorporated ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(2022) 143 taxmann 178. Accordingly the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on accounts of the delayed deposit to contribution to ESI and EPF has confirmed and the ground raised

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1569/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36