← 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)

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2474/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

opinion, the assessee has to demonstrate the usage of the borrowed funds for the purpose of business as laid out in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

opinion, the assessee has to demonstrate the usage of the borrowed funds for the purpose of business as laid out in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no fault

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 438 of the Act are prospective in nature. 2. The fact in brief is that the A.O made adjustment in the intimation passed u/s 143(1 ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018- 19 and therefore, deduction was allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable for the relevant assessment year. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 1 April 2021 and accordingly, applicable

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018- 19 and therefore, deduction was allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable for the relevant assessment year. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 1 April 2021 and accordingly, applicable

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

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

ITA 327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrishabh Metals & Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1) Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Eros Theater Mk Road, Bldg, J.T.Road, Mumbai-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2214E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar.DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

justified and the same may be deleted. 4. The CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance of Rs.39,745/- made by the CPC under section 36(1) (va) of the Act on account of delayed payment on account of employees contribution toward provident fund without appreciating that the same ... 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. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the Grounds

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, 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. Learned ... 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

Ketan Brothers Diamonds Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1 ... 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

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Page ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 8. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Page ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 8. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

treating the write off of loans and advances provided to employees (which subsequently become irrecoverable) as write off of debts receivable under section 36(1)(vii). 5.2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the same

Swaroopsing Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1827/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, 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 ... 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

Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, 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 ... 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

Ashvira Industires LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT-23 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1523/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

without jurisdiction since the additions have been made on issue where two views are possible. The addition of INR 2,39,440/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been made without appreciating that the employee‟s contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date ... filing return and was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act in terms of the following decisions of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Hind Filter: 90 Taxmann.com 51. Further the Tribunal has in number

Thiruvalaya Venugopal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 235/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before ... income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the I.T.Act is only prospective. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 4 Sri.Thiruvalaya Venugopal. “5. We heard