← 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)

Shreeji Trans Logistics Ltd., Thane vs. CIT (A), CPC, Banglore

In the result, th same. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are e grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Ita No. 388 To 390/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2019-2020 Shreeji Translogistics Ltd., Cit(Appeals), Plot No. 107, Shreeji Krupa, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Sector 19-C, Phase-Ii Vashi, Centre, Thane-400705 Delhi. Pan No. Aaecs 3602 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

M/S Guruji Infrastruture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 343/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) M/S. Guruji Infrastructure बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Pvt. Ltd Banglore. Vs. 33, Plot 1088 Suraj Plaza, ‘A’ Wing, Chandulal Park, Station Rd Bhayandar (W), Thane-401101. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg3499G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Cpc Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing Rs.1,47,39,619/- Claimed Towards Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund/Esic. 3. Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,38,870/-. & Thereafter, It Received Intimation Dated 23.012.2021 From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Wherein An Amount Of Rs.1,47,39,619/- Was Disallowed On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esic In The Relevant Funds Within

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

attention to column no. 20(b) item no. 81 (details of contribution received for contribution of various funds as recorded to in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act) wherein she drew our attention to item no. 81 wherein contributions were purportedly made on 15.12.2019 of an amount of Rs.1

The Master Polishers, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Master Polishers, Assistant Director Of Income S-02, Suchita Chs Ltd., Kalina Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Vs. Church Cross Road, Santacruz 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. East, 48/1 48/2, Mumbai-400029. Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aahft 5749 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Hirawat, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

before 7th th of May 2019. The Ld. Counsel referred to the 19. The Ld. Counsel referred to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and submitted that provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and submitted that provisions of section 36(1

Spick-N-Span Services, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(1) Erstwhile Ward-27(3)(3), Mum

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.14/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.15/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Spick-N-Span Services बिधम/ Income Tax Officer Ward- 41(3)(1) (Erstwhile 409, 4Th Floor, Sej Plaza, Vs. Marve Road Malad (W) Ward- 27(3)(3) Mumbai- 400064 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs2733G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 16.11.2022 For Ay 2011-12 & Ay 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 48,19,696/- For The Ay 2011-12 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After ‘The Act’) & Rs. 1,48,61,729/- (Ay 2018- 19) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Both On Account Of Disallowance Of Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund & Esic U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act. Since, The Issue

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 1949 & 1950/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 M/S Super Tiles & Marbles National Faceless Appeal Pvt. Ltd, Centre (Nfac) Vs. 904 Marathon Icon, Opposite Mararshi Karve Road, New Peninsula Corporate Park, Off Marine Lines, Churchgate, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel-West, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacs 9361 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Raman Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 14Section 43B

circumstances and following the clarificatory amendments made by the Finance Ac amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to section t, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the contentions made in the 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the contentions made in the 36(1 ... deposing of employee's made by AQ, CPC for not deposing of employee's contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1

Patwari Steels Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/PAT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

said judgment is reproduced as under: “• The deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of Section 36(1) (iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1 ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Prime Comfort Porducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

PF/ESI, however, the assessee had claimed deduction of such payment. 4. Being of the view that the deduction claimed is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the CPC made an adjustment to the income of the assessee by disallowing ... under the relevant statute governing such payments, the amount in question has to be treated as income of the assessee in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance has to be upheld. In so far as the contention

Blue Bell Proptech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 3153/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

relevant for the preparation of Financial Statement, not for allow ability of interest expenses incurred for the purpose of business and allowable Under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) did not consider the submission of the Appellant that Tax Accounting Standards ... under the head ‘inventories’ in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2012. Since there was overlapping of section 92CA(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the AO adopted the higher figure of Rs. 8,44,36,408/- for the purpose of disallowance of interest

Blue Bell Proptech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in I

ITA 7197/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

relevant for the preparation of Financial Statement, not for allow ability of interest expenses incurred for the purpose of business and allowable Under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) did not consider the submission of the Appellant that Tax Accounting Standards ... under the head ‘inventories’ in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2012. Since there was overlapping of section 92CA(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act the AO adopted the higher figure of Rs. 8,44,36,408/- for the purpose of disallowance of interest

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee." vi. The scope and effect of the newly inserted Section 36(1)(va) and the newly inserted provisos to Section 43B of the IT Act were elaborated in a Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter, “CBDT”) circular ... employee's account in the relevant fund under the provisions of any law or term of contract of service or otherwise [Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Finance Act]).” 5.3. The appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Jurisdictional High-Court in CIT Faridabad Vs Lakhani Rubber Udyog

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee." vi. The scope and effect of the newly inserted Section 36(1)(va) and the newly inserted provisos to Section 43B of the IT Act were elaborated in a Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter, “CBDT”) circular ... employee's account in the relevant fund under the provisions of any law or term of contract of service or otherwise [Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Finance Act]).” 5.3. The appellant has relied upon the Judgment of Jurisdictional High-Court in CIT Faridabad Vs Lakhani Rubber Udyog

Sparrow Security Services, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

being segregated from the information tabulated in para no ‘b’ above and the same is only covered as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va). The late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI works out to Rs. 1079120/- as per the following details: PF Month Date

Flourtech Engineers Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-1, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshflourtech Engiiners Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No.-182, Sector-24, Circle-1, Fardiabad, Haryana 121005 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf4904H

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya (Intern)For Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, 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

ADIT (I.T)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 651/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.6818/मुं/2006 ("न.व. 2002-03) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(2), Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.651/मुं/2007 ("न.व. 2002-03) Adit(It)-3(2),Mumbai R. No.132, 1St Floor, N.M.Road, Mumbai – 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 44C

36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that banking companies are covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, hence, amount of bad debt claimed would be limited to that amount which exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful ... assessee has further placed reliance on the Instructions No.17/2008 (supra). The relevant part of said Instructions is extracted herein below: “(i) Under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, deduction on account of bad debts which are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee is admissible. However

M/S. the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 3(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6818/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.6818/मुं/2006 ("न.व. 2002-03) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(2), Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.651/मुं/2007 ("न.व. 2002-03) Adit(It)-3(2),Mumbai R. No.132, 1St Floor, N.M.Road, Mumbai – 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 44C

36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that banking companies are covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, hence, amount of bad debt claimed would be limited to that amount which exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful ... assessee has further placed reliance on the Instructions No.17/2008 (supra). The relevant part of said Instructions is extracted herein below: “(i) Under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, deduction on account of bad debts which are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee is admissible. However

Shri Ankurbhai Dhanjibhai Khatariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO-Ward-1, Gandhidham, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 155/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

whereby and whereunder the addition made to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- towards contribution to Provident Fund and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been confirmed. 2. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties and we have also perused ... assessee as to why the late deposit of P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- should not be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee upon which the assessee filed the details wherefrom it appears

Bhavesh Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-No-27(1), Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. A.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

income declaring total income of Rs.48,14,750/- which was subjected to scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) by invoking the provisions contained under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) 4 Shri Bhavesh Mahendra Mehta made addition of Rs.49,71,623/- on account

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

return claiming the entire deduction which was allowable to it under the Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as all the conditions thereof were fulfiled and, thus, it was exercising the statutory right which could not be denied ... 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 13) We find that the High Court has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the conditions which are to be fulfilled for allowing the deduction on this account in the following words: “...The term “interest” has been

Aglowmed Limited, Patna vs. ADIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

said judgment is reproduced as under: “• The deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of Section 36(1) (iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1 ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated