← 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)

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Revenue’s appeal to the extent indicated above. Issue - 2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related parties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 30. For A.Y. 2013-14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of account and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without ... assessee submitted that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make the impugned advances and, therefore, no disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was warranted. In respect of two non-related parties, namely, (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 2,45,00,000/-, and (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Revenue's appeal to the extent indicated above. Issue 2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related parties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) 30. For A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of account and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without ... assessee submitted that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make the impugned advances and, therefore, no disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was warranted. In respect of two non-related parties, namely, (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.2,45,00,000/-, and (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure – Rs.35

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Karimnagar vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 478/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered the same liable for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.01.2019 was served upon

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Siricilla vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 411/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

employees’ share of contributions towards various welfare funds within the prescribed time period, which thus, rendered the same liable for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.01.2019 was served upon

Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 47/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanRao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)

amount of Rs.4,30,29,173/- in its books of account as irrecoverable, and accordingly claimed the same as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It was submitted that once the bad debts are written off in the books, the assessee is entitled to deduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

this issue available, the additional ground is admitted and considered on merits. In the intimation under Section 143(1), Employee contribution under Section 36(1)(va) was disallowed on the ground that it has been mentioned in the Auditor's report that some portion of the payments have been made

M/S. British Agro Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

ITA 1146/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1146/Chny/2025

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Paltex, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1301/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Paltex, Ito, Ward – 24(3)(1), Plot No.41, Pal House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Marol Co-Operative Society, Lalbaug, Lower Parel, Andherei Kural Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (East),Mumbai-400059. [Pan No. Aaafp 1973 F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 57Section 68Section 71

interest income in their individual income and paid due tax thereon. Therefore, in substance, there is no loss to revenue. The provisions of section 36(1)(iii) are not applicable to the interest on partners capital, rather, such payments are to be governed exclusively by section 40(b). In support

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under ... Commissioner of Income Tax-11 judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, settling the issue with regard to claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, wherein, it was held that to claim deduction under the aforesaid provision, employees' contribution should be deposited

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under ... Commissioner of Income Tax-11 judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, settling the issue with regard to claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, wherein, it was held that to claim deduction under the aforesaid provision, employees' contribution should be deposited

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

earlier orders so passed by his ld. predecessor for A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y 2013-14 in terms of invocation of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act instead of section 14A of the Act. Given that there are no changes in the facts and circumstances ... Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd (Supra), we reverse the said findings of the ld CIT(A) and uphold the applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act for the purposes of making the disallowance of interest expenses debited in the profit/loss account for these two assessment years

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act, then in such a scenario, the amount cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act as the due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act need to be read in conjunction with ... applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section 36(1)(5a) talks about not allowing the deduction if the payment is not made within the due date. The ld. AR of the assessee has argued that

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act, then in such a scenario, the amount cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act as the due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act need to be read in conjunction with ... applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section 36(1)(5a) talks about not allowing the deduction if the payment is not made within the due date. The ld. AR of the assessee has argued that

M/S Beeaar Autowheels India Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 282/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return, the disallowance be deleted. 4. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before ... Supreme Court had held that the deduction could only be allowed in respect of those sum which fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and in the event of failure to make the deposit before the due dates, as specified under the respective welfare

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return, the disallowance be deleted. 04. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before ... return, the disallowance be deleted. 03. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return, the disallowance be deleted. 04. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before ... return, the disallowance be deleted. 03. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before

Sunrise Facilitators Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

ITA 689/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.689/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle बनाम/ Vs. 2238/5B, Shanti Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Sector 2, Panchkula "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0850-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-08-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 15-09-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.161.54 Lacs U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) As Reported By Tax Auditor In Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

finally been held that there is clear distinction between employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of Section 36(1)(iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees’ [in terms of Sec. 36(1 ... character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. Padmavathi V., Hospet

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

ITA 2102/BANG/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44A

Court in the ease of M/s. Mysore Sugar Company Limited. 6.4 As regards the allowability of the same as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) as per the submission of the appellant, the stand taken in the assessment order Page 6 of 9 appears to be incorrect application ... trading loss need not necessarily be a bad debt. There. may be a bad debt which may not fall within the purview of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, by may well be regarded as one eligible for deduction incurred in the course of carrying on business will come

M/S. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2492/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Acit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- Circle-16(1), 110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 16Section 44Section 45Section 4A

instant case. 29. So far as the question of 'bad and doubtful claims' is concerned, again the same is not an expenditure. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act whereupon the learned Additional Solicitor General placed strong reliance, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in the instant case

Ihhr Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi vs. The ACIT, Circle 12(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 15,80,202/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961by the AO on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to ESI/PF. 2 IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ... sister 6 IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT concern which was also engaged in real estate business, deduction claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(iii) could not be disallowed on account of said advance of loan. 12. Honourable Delhi high court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reebok