“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)

Kausalya Agro Farms Amd Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee and, accordingly, issued a show-cause ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 5 notice along with a draft assessment order, proposing a disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the assessee did not furnish any response to the said show-cause notice, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section ... read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 29.03.2022, making an addition of Rs.1,17,73,680/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,20,69,930/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. NFAC, CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

bank and a banking company have been treated separate and independent from each other for which our reference was also drawn to Section 36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified person is responsible

Aryavart Bank, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

provision made for assets with overdue of less than 90 days as provision made for bad and doubtful debts in terms of section 36(1)(viia). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not deciding on disallowance

Ucal Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

income includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any Provident Fund and ESI. As per section 36(1)(va), the same is allowable only if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds ... filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) :-10-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 of the Act, no disallowance was warranted in terms of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 16. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer had issued the Show Cause Notice

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limted, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 69/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 68/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 67/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3086/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR

Section 14A

fact that the assessee has got sufficient own funds to extend the loans interest free, we hereby direct that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) be deleted.” 7. Further, it is seen that ld. CIT(A), while deleting the disallowance has followed the aforesaid order of the Tribunal

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar Jolly, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

which has been later disallowed by the Assessing Officer mentioning that the appellant has utilized such loans for non business purposes. As per section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business or profession ... Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains', and this has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court. [Para

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

company" as defined in Section 2 (5A) (iv) read with Section 2 (5B) (iii) of the Act; and (f) it enjoys exemption under section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide letter F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, as is available ... connection there with.” (emphasis added) 6.1 BECAUSE the mere fact that the appellant corporation has been held to be eligible for relief under section 36 (1) (viii) of the IT Act, 1961, by virtue of Notification No. F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, will not ipso

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bank Of Baroda Acit-2(1)(1) Baroda Corporate Centre Room 561, 5Th Floor Corporate Accounts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 2Nd M.K. Road Floor, C-26, G-Block Churchgate Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Bandra-E, Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aaacb1534F Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh & Shri

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)

assessment order without conducting enquiries or verification which should have been done. Since the Ld. AO did not examine the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and correctness of the deduction claimed by the appellant, the Ld. PCIT placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

purpose of extension of its business. The extension of business has not been specifically defined in the context of Proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was contended that based on general/commercial parlance, with respect to the telecommunications business, 'extension' of business may be construed to mean ... business (not leading to extension per se) was not covered by the said proviso and was clearly deductable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. The Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had raised both secured and ITA No.1073/Del/2015

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no requirement in law under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, that the amount should actually be written off before the end of the financial year. Relevant provisions of Section ... previous year" 6. On perusal of the provisions here-in-above, it reveals that the only requirement for allowing the bad debt under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, is that any bad debt or part thereof is written off as irrecoverable and secondly, they should

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 70,67,205/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. 3) That the learned CJT(A) has further erred in ignoring the consistent ... judicial position that the due date for deposit of employee contributions under Section 36(1)(va) should be reckoned with reference to the actual date of disbursement of salary and not the month to which the salary pertains. 4) That the learned authorities below have erred in not appreciating that

DCIT, Circle 8 Pune, Pune vs. Alfa Laval India Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 2270/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 92C

determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.247,08,48,210/- after making adjustments as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Deemed International Transactions 2. Large value of international transactions 3. Transactions with

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1 ), Mumbai vs. Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250