“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)

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80GSection 80L

assets and restructured assets as provision bad and doubtful debts. 2. The assessee bank, in the return of income had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) which was restricted by the Assessing Officer to the extent of the provisions made by the assessee for the year under consideration ... Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect dated 22.12.2017 to the Tribunal's order where he had computed the amount allowable under section 36(1)(viia) as below:- Particulars Amount Amount (Rs.) (Rs.) Income as per order u/s 154 of the Act dated 1592,35,59,106/- 16.6.2017 Add : Chapter

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

statute. Since the assessee was delayed in making the deposits even beyond such extended period, he applied the disallowance in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would not dispute that the issue of disallowance of late deposited employees' contributions ... provident fund. Looking from this angle, there was no delay or default on the part of present assessee. 4. In terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) applies

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

Calibehr Business Support Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessement Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 287/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amey Wagle, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudia, AR

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.2,82,895/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act solely based on the tax audit report uploaded by the Tax Auditor. 2. Both the lower authorities erred in deciding ... before the end of the relevant financial year. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applies w.e.f. April 1, 2021. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest. The appellant denies

Grindwelll Nortan Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1087/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

assessee. Accordingly, the said grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. As regards disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the contention of the assessee will no longer survive in view ... case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (Civil Appeal No. 2833/2016) dated 12.10.2022, wherein it has been held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act will be attracted if employees contribution is not paid within the due dates prescribed in the respective Acts. Accordingly, we dismiss

Stock Holdings Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1722/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Ajudiya, DRFor Respondent: Shri Akram Khan, AR

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

deposited within the extended due date prescribed by EPFO. 3 Both the lower authorities erred in disallowing 11,45,686 under Section 36(1)(va) employees' contribution (Excluding to Provident Fund, late payment of employees' surcharge and contributions to ESIC and labour welfare fund education cess) aggregating to Rs.38 ... Both the lower authorities erred in making a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va), on a debatable issue, vide intimation under section 143(1)(a). 5 Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the payment of employees' contribution to ESIC and labour welfare fund was made before

Ansal Housing Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Dcit 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Cpc Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Bengaluru Road, New Delhi – 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv, Shri Sudarshan Roy, Ar Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Berggruen Car Rentals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed and matter is restored back to the file of Ld

ITA 965/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalberggruen Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, 898, Nootan Plaza, Turner Road, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aadcb1335P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cpc/Dcit Cir 4(1)91) Cpc Bengalure /Aayakar Bhavan M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews , Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

statutory time limit for filing the appeal. 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 12,88,782/- under section 36(1) (va) of the Act without appreciating that the payment of employee's contribution to the provident fund was paid within the extended due date granted ... EPFO. 3 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 12,88,782/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating that the disallowance made by CPC, Bengaluru was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a) read with section

Ramacivil India Construction, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2162/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of ₹.400168/- made by CPC, under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment on account of employees contribution towards provident fund and ESIC of employees, without appreciating that ... prospective in nature and thus the same will not apply for the assessment under consideration. Thus, the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) is not justified and the same may be deleted. 4. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C, without appreciating

Sharekhan Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

ITA 182/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40A(7)Section 43B

contribution on account of PF & ESIC deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act by relying upon the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act having been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation 2 and explanation 5 have been inserted ... whether payment by the employers qua PF contribution of employees after due date prescribed under the relevant Act is an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B?” has been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services

M/S. Geekay Facility Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1624/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, D.R

Section 36(1)(va)

made by the assessee on account of employees’ contribution of PF & ESIC after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act whereas no reference/discussion has been made qua the amount of Rs.11,47,285/- appears to have been deposited

Sterling Motors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1/MUM/2022[2018-196]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-196

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rayan Saldhana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R

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

assessee on account of employees’ contribution of provident fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the tune of Rs.6,92,078/- 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 ... employees’ contribution on account of PF, ESIC contribution & 3 M/s. Sterling Motors superannuation fund etc. after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return

Darshan Creation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst DCIT, CPC Bangaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 2345/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledarshan Creation Pvt Ltd Vs. Asst. Dcit,Cpc A/082, Shantivan Bldg Bangalore, Eksar Village Devidas Karnataka-560500 Lane, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400103. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd6658D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jeet Kamdar.Ar Respondent By : Mr.T. Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jeet Kamdar.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T. Shankar.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that ... just a factual report about the fact of payments and the fact of the due date as per the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). This due date, however, has not been found to be decisive in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above