“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)

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal by Revenue (ITA No

ITA 900/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Appeal are directed against order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 7.1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee has borrowed funds ... account of requirements by banks and cooperated debt restructuring. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed INR 33,32,46,991/- as interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of loans granted by the Assessee to Arshia Industrial Distribution Hub Ltd., Arshiya Northern FTWZ Limited, Arshiya Rail Infrastructure

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92B

following issues : a) Deletion of transfer pricing adjustment relating to interest on excess period of receivables b) Deletion of interest disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent on several occasions ... interest thereon. The Assessing Officer took the view that the interest attributable to the purchase/acquisition of assets cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly he computed interest attributable to capital asset/capital work in progress at Rs. 13,54,519/- and disallowed the same

Kisha Telelinks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 478/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

observed that the majority of these loans and advances are given to the sister concern by the assessee and no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has been made by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the interest claimed under ... section 36(1)(iii) of the Act be not disallowed. In the absence of any satifactory reply, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 29/12/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the interest amounting to Rs.6,82,373, and added the same to the total income

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3873/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A) & Which Was Partly Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Disallowance made under section 14A of the I.T. Act b) Disallowance of provisions for inventory written off c) Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act d) Disallowance of bad debts written off 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of engineering tools ... advanced interest free loan to its subsidiary, group and associate companies. Accordingly he disallowed proportionate interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 1.47 crore under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) noticed that identical disallowance made in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2010-11 has been decided

DCIT, Circle -1, Thane vs. M/S Accura Pharmaquip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 969/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

disallowed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act without taking note of the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. We note the issue raised by the Revenue is no longer res-integra. We note that this Tribunal ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Jagdamba Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 913/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

date as prescribed the respective Acts (PF/ESI Act). According to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospectively applicable for the year under consideration (AY. 2018-19) and is applicable to pending cases ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 892/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 891/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Surana Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 846/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 845/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 57/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

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

late payment of Rs.6,68,547/- made by the assessee on account of PF & ESIC under section 2(24)(X) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing ... what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 as the amendment will be effective from

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 443/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the Appellant in proceedings before CIT(A). Further, even after the introduction of amendments to Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021, Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had, vide order dated 15.06.2021, in the case

Nilesh V. Metha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1150/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

M/S Vaishali Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1122/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

M/S. Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)

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

1) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) took the aid of the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2021in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which according to him was retrospective in operation and so is applicable for the year under consideration ... date as prescribed the respective Acts (PF/ESI Act). According to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospectively applicable 3 A.Y. 2019-20 Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders for the year under consideration

Stg Refractory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400042 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Karnataka-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1063/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Chauhan Lifters, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1289/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1289/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) National Faceless Chauhan Lifters Appeal Centre (Nfac), 124-3, Bhaskar Niwas Road No. बिधम/ Delhi 4, Scheme No. 6, Sion East, Vs. Maharashtra-400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aakfc2375E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By None : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1289/Mum/2022 Chauhan Lifters 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

M/S S. K. International, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1251/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1251/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-17(1), M/S. S. K. International Kautilya Bhavan, Near S. K. House, 94-A, Aval Baug, बिधम/ Videsh Bhavan, Bandra D. S. P. Road, Dadar (E), Vs. Kurla, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 014 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aamfs2232C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By None : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.04.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1251/Mum/2022 M/s. S. K. International 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

Agaskar Civil & Garden Contractors, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1247/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) National Faceless Agaskar Civil & Garden Appeal Centre (Nfac), Contractors बिधम/ Delhi Plot No. A-249, Namdeo Smruti, Vs. Sector-19, Koparkhairanine, Navi Mumbai-400 709 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abcfa6438K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 30.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1247/Mum/2022 Agaskar Civil & Garden Contractors 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

Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT CPC Bangalore & Cir 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1216/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1216/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore & Pace Setters Business Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 1 Bori Bunglow, 49 S K Bole Vs. Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcp7717M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ld. Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 23.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... respect of contributions received from employees for various 15 I.T.A. No. 1216/Mum/2022 Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 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