“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)

Logix Heights Private Ltd, Dlehi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)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 is to 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

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 263/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

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 is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this 5 ITA No.263/Del./2022 distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution

Nexgen Infracon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 261/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)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 ... contribution of the employees’ share to their 5 ITA No.261/Del./2022 credit with the relevant fund is to 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

Prisma, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1197/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: N o n e

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bang/2021 and Indian Geotechnical Services Vs. ACIT ITA. No. 622/Del/2018 delivered after consideration of the insertion of explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 employer’s contribution to PF and ESI paid on or before the due date of filing of ITR under section ... deposited before the due date of filing the return. The issue of whether the employees’ contribution is allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act if it is paid beyond the due date specified under PF/ESI Act came up befor the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with explanation to section 36(1)(va) and 43B and confirmed the addition amount of Rs.4,87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. The assessee was called

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Badaun Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Badaun

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

ITA 5272/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Patiala 272 ITR 54 is directly on the facts under consideration. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “Analysis of Section 36(1)(viia) Section 36(1)(vii) provides for a deduction in the computation of taxable profits for the debt established to be a bad debt ... Section 36(1)(viia) provides for a deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debt made by a Scheduled Bank or Non- Scheduled Bank in relation to advances made by its rural branches, of a sum not exceeding a specified percentage of the aggregate average advances

Bhargavi Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. Cit (A). However, The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Consequently The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Grounds Mentioned Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena (Addl.CIT)

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

following reporting under clause 20(b) of Form 3 CD. “Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) : b Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va): S.No. Nature of fund ... column no. 5. Thus on the basis of non reporting, the CPC added the entire amount under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) thereby assuming that no amount was deposited. But as per factual position the amount as mentioned in Column no. 3 was deposited

G S Build Estate P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return & By Not Following The Binding Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court Of Rajasthan That If The Employees Contribution Is Deposited Before Due Date, No Disallowance Could Be Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR

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

ground No. (1), the ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in holding that explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) introduced by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature and therefore disallowance confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on this account is wrong ... WARD 6(2), JAIPUR ‘’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 part

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Supreme Court has also admittedly held that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kronos Solutions India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

ITA 785/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 36(1)Section 40A(7)

return of income and this position was also brought to the notice to the Ld. AO; 4.2. INR 90,92,490 disallowed under section 36(1) (va) of the Act, relating to employees' contribution to provident fund which was duly paid before the extended due date prescribed vide notification number

Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

ITA 7822/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

were given without charging any interest which has resulted in incurring burden on account of advances given to sister concern in violation of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Likewise, before the CIT(A), the assessee has failed to defend inapplicability of Section 56(2)(viib

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

proposed to disallow an amount of Rs. 21,75,577/- on account of delayed payment of PF & ESI as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Ld. AO accordingly passed draft assessment order on 29/11/2019. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba vs. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd., Korba

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022. Observing, that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the employee’s share of contributions towards ESI & EPF which were deposited by the assessee employer beyond ... Korba (C.G.) Vs. M/s. Dee Vee Project Ltd. 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions