“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)

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Delhi) has held that “Question No.2 7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds ... relief in terms of the prevailing provisions and notifications. We also clarify that the assessee would be entitled to deduction in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.” 10. However Honourable Delhi high court in case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4458/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut vs. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 3224/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)

ITA No.-3224/Del/2018. Sarva UP Gramin Bank. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH

Wellman Employment India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Range-48, New Delhi

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

ITA 1632/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2017-18 Wellman Employment India Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., C/O-Prakash Sachin & Range-18, Co., 13-D, 13Th Floor, Atma Ram New Delhi. House, 1-Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcw5648J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Prakash Sinha, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Employee Provident Fund Act 1952 and as per the law, the appellant cannot be termed as an employer requiring the compliance of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the appellant is only ... PF/ESI Act was with the client and not on the appellant and therefore the appellant is not an employer in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee had filed its return which

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Delhi. against the Assessee’s treatment of the same as a Revenue Expenditure. He submitted that the Assessee relies upon Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 – that provides a deduction of the amount of interest in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business ... Term Loan obtained, the said ‘upfront fee’ does fall within the definition of ‘interest’ and is allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 67 ITA.No.8617/Del./2019 M/s. Brace Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8.2. He submitted that

Ashish Jindal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 52(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4383/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ashish Jindal, Vs Ito, 8, Sundar Nagar, Ward-52(4), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aexpj2013H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th April, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal Recalled Its Order Vide Ma No.205/Del/2020, Order Dated 11.06.2021. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of 13,41,068/-made on account of interest expenses invoking the provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act. (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard ... assessee that the interest claimed by the assessee having direct nexus with the business expediency of the assessee, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 6. The ld. Counsel strongly challenged

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Dcit, C/O-Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Cpc, Bengaluru. H.No.651, Ff, Sec-10A, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)(va)

case. 5. That CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) when the amount was deposited before due date of filling return u/s 139(1) is not free from controversy

ACIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Utilities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7800/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 22/12/2016 after making disallowance of ₹ 3,15,81,435/- in terms of section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of ₹ 40,06,740/- under section 14A of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowances made ... therefore disallowance of interest on borrowed capital, which was used for advances to assessee subsidiary company is not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4.1 On the other hand, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that identical disallowance on same borrowed capital was made

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

covered u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. According to AO such write-off don’t fall within the purview of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

covered u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. According to AO such write-off don’t fall within the purview of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

covered u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. According to AO such write-off don’t fall within the purview of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

covered u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. According to AO such write-off don’t fall within the purview of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. United Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. M/S. United Hotels Limited Special Range – 9, The Ambassador Hotel, New Delhi Sujan Singh Park, Cornwallis Road, Pan No. Aaacu 0031 C New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Ajmani, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

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

paid commission to the share holder Directors without any services rendered by them to the company any only to bypass the provision of Section 36(1)(ii) so as to not declared the dividend.” 3 4. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimai Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2115/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

utilized the interest bearing borrowed funds in making interest free advances, not meant for business purposes, the proportionate interest in terms of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act may be disallowed. 25.3 He submitted that in the instant case, the advances has been made for the purpose of business

Mason Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)

obtained the loan from OIPL and therefore, the borrowing was for commercial expediency and the interest expense thereon is an allowable expenditure under section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act. In the alternative it is submitted that since the learned Assessing Officer did not disturb the offering of interest received ... therefore, submitted that the interest of Rs.1,35,25,521/- paid by the assessee to M/s. OIPL is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) or 37(1) of the Act. 6. Alternatively, she pleaded that the loan/advance from M/s. OIPL has not been utilized for strategic purposes of the business

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd., Gujrat

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5909/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5909/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-19, Survay No. 221, Village New Delhi-110055 Vadala, Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat-370410 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn8500A Assessee By : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.07.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115J

expended wholly and exclusively for purposes of business shall be allowed in computing Profits and Gains from Business and Profession. Further, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act provides for “capitalization of interest paid for acquisition of an asset from the date on which funds were borrowed till ... case, owing to the similar determinative factum of “put to use” in ICDS IX, AS-16, the judicial pronouncements, provisions to Section 36(1)(iii) and Explanation 8 to Section 43(1), we hereby hold that the Interest of Rs. 28,84,000/- has to be treated as Revenue Expenditure

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Utech Developers Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 3736/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld. Cit (A)

Section 37(1)

appellant, the said claim of interest amounting to Rs.5,35,90,353/- is allowed as business expenditure within the meaning of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The appellant gets relief accordingly.” ACIT vs. M/s. Utech Developmers Ltd. 5.3 During the course of hearing before

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7679/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6433/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7679/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Religare Housing Development Circle-21(1), Finance Corporation Ltd.,D-3, P3B, New Delhi District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6533D Present Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6433/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Dr. B. R