← All Phrases

“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)

Ashirbad Housekeeping Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO- Ward 3(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2303/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4380/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Ward- 16 (1) Vs C-16, 101 First Floor, New Delhi Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092 Pan No.Aahcm1300K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)Section 68

deleted the addition observing as under :- “11.3 I have given due consideration to the facts of the case. As per section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, the appellant is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of the amount of the interest paid on the capital borrowed

M/S. Shaildeep Engineering P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 85/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

For Appellant: Shri Akash Goda, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80J

section 80JJA of the Act amounting to Rs.2,02,500/- and disallowance of employees’ 2 contribution to ESI and PF in terms of section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.2,81,444/-. The reasons for disallowance of deduction under section 80JJA being non-filing of necessary audit report in form ... taxmann.com 178 as per which, even a single day’s delay would attract disallowance as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s grievance against the order of the ld.CIT(A) upholding the adjustment made to the income of the assessee on account

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 46/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 4,87,138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 45/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 4,87,138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 44/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 4,87,138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

amounting to INR 25,72,68,331/- were in the nature of bad debts written off and therefore, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return

Glitters Forever House Keeping Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 99/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

interest of justice. This direction is being given because Id. AR has submitted that as the amount of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) and same is also not covered under section

Glitters Forever Hose Keeping Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

interest of justice. This direction is being given because Id. AR has submitted that as the amount of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) and same is also not covered under section

Aroon Aviation Services P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Aroon Aviation Services P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 90/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Anangpal Jawla, Ballabhgarh vs. Ita, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 151/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund isto be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Ciron Drugs & Pharmacuticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Raman S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

assessee is against the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F)/Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a private limited company ... inter-alia, after making disallowance of Rs.31,31,991, on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to P.F./E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, which was disposed off vide order dated 03/07/2019 without

Silkasia, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 400/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
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 ... towards employee’s contribution to P.F. / E.S.I.C. after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On the basis of this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has preferred the present

Millennium Herbal Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2325/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee is against the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F)/Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a private limited company ... inter-alia, after making disallowance of Rs.2,38,889, on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to P.F./ E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Vide impugned order, the Millennium Herbal Care Ltd. ITA no.2325/Mum./2021 learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

ACIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Vvdn Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 164/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

payment for month of April 2019 was paid on or before 7th of May 2019. The Ld. Counsel referred to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and submitted that employee's contribution was deposited as per the due date. prescribed under the relevant

Hisar Metal Industries Limited, Hisar vs. DCIT, Circle, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed and the Appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 2248/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 361vSection 438

Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of 140, 0 who had made addition of Rs 34,50,723 under section 36(1) of the Act, being the employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI respectively which was deducted from the employee's salary and not remitted ... same. 4. That the Learned CIT(ALNFAC has misinterpreted context of amendment brought via Finance Bill 2021 to the Section 438 and Section 36(1)(va) and was unjustified in confirming the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer relying on the amendments made to section 36(1)(a) and Section

Hisar Metal Industries Limited, Hisar vs. DCIT Circle, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed and the Appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 2244/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 361vSection 438

Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of 140, 0 who had made addition of Rs 34,50,723 under section 36(1) of the Act, being the employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI respectively which was deducted from the employee's salary and not remitted ... same. 4. That the Learned CIT(ALNFAC has misinterpreted context of amendment brought via Finance Bill 2021 to the Section 438 and Section 36(1)(va) and was unjustified in confirming the addition made by Learned Assessing Officer relying on the amendments made to section 36(1)(a) and Section

M/S. Raj Pipes, Rajnandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur

ITA 150/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of the 3 M/s. Raj Pipes Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur said amount could have been made under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. I, thus, on the basis of my aforesaid observations, therein, concurring with the claim ... aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance of Rs.91,150/- made by the A.O by triggering provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.(ii) raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.” (vi) Thereafter

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

funds, viz. Employee’s Provident fund (EPF) and Employee’s State Insurance (ESI) is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 19. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... that the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards EPF & ESI is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the employee’s share of contribution towards