“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)

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the investments were, in fact, made exclusively ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing reliance upon the Bombay Minerals Ltd. 3 ITA No. 5408, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025 judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2273/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee is not justified. 18. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and submitted that interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction. Reliance was also placed ... materials available on record. The issue involved in the present :- 13 -: ITA Nos.2272 & 2273/CHNY/2025 appeal relates to the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had incurred interest expenditure on loans obtained from banks

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2272/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37