← 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)

Western Conglomerate Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2645/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Duncans Tea Ltd, Kolkata vs. Aadl/JCIT, Kolkata

ITA 2627/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Laltu Adhikari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known As West Bengal Gramin Bank), Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2592/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)

noted that the same was not suo motto disallowed by the assessee while filing the return of income and in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed the same and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with section

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known As West Bengal Gramin Bank), Murshidabad vs. JCIT(I & Ci) - 1, Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2591/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)

noted that the same was not suo motto disallowed by the assessee while filing the return of income and in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed the same and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with section

Cordoba Engineering Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2388/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Cordoba Engineering Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Limited Aaykar Bhawan P-7, 23A, 7Th Floor, Room No.17, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Netaji Shubas Road, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal 700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc0348K Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

same to the income of the assessee by observing that expenditure is not allowable for the want of fulfilment of conditions as per Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and 36(2) of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) simply affirmed the order ... under:- “4. In view of the above, claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 30/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, Rule 2ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after going through the remand report of the Ld. AO has given ... figures. The AO accepted the proposition in the assessment order that the claim is allowable if it stands the test of law. Section 36(1)(viia) stipulates the allowability of claim in the manner prescribed and the manner has been prescribed in rule 6ABA. The appellant has made the calculation

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

earlier order and uphold the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 14 is dismissed. Ground No. 15 – Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) 10. This ground relates to deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1 ... presumption arises that investments are made out of such interest-free funds, and in the absence of contrary material, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. 10.3 In the year under consideration also, the Revenue has not brought any material to establish a nexus between borrowed funds

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

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

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer. It is further stated under section 36(1) (va) of the Act that the employer will not get deduction unless the employer credits such contribution to the employee's account

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

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

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer. It is further stated under section 36(1) (va) of the Act that the employer will not get deduction unless the employer credits such contribution to the employee's account

M/S. Bakshi Security and Personnel Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8004/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Income Tax Officer– 12(1)(1), Services P. Ltd., Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Unit No.234/235, Mumbai Benches, 101 Maharishi New Sonal Link Industrial Estate, Vs. Karve Marg, Buildg 02, Link Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Malad West, Mumbai- 400064 Pan: Aaacb3456A (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

facts & circumstances and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3.07,41,124/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act disregarding the scrutiny assessment under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act in which there was no disallowance ... oblige. (1) On the facts and circumstances & in law, A.O. [CPC] erred in disallowing of Rs.3,07,41,124/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act merely relying on the Tax Audit Report Clouse 20(b) which mistakenly reported the contribution towards PF & ESIC

Truhome Finance Limited (Earlier Known As Shriram Housing Finance Limited), Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3(1) Chennai, Chennai

ITA 781/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr. S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modern Veer Rays Security Force (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7886/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(2)(1) Modern Veer Rays Room No. 417, 4Th Security Force (India) Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Churchgate, M. K. 6Th Floor, Atlanta Road, Mumbai- Centre, Sonawala 400 020 Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3692H (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

total income was determined at Rs. 52,17,18,940/- after making, inter alia, an addition of Rs. 17,45,20,610/- under section 36(1)(va) on account of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC allegedly deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The adjustment was made ... rectified by the tax auditor through a revised Form 3CD dated 08.03.2023. 4. The learned CIT(A), after examining the statutory provisions of section 36(1)(va) and Explanation thereto, section 38 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Regulation 31 of the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Kingdom, as and by way of extension of the Appellant's existing steel business and hence claimed by the Appellant as deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). 2.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the Interest amounting to₹ 518,75,84,534 ought to have been allowed under Section ... assessee is that interest expenditure incurred by it is for the purpose of business and hence, allowable expenditure within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii). Facts relating to financing structure as detailed above and the investment made by the assessee including that AY 2008-09 by the step down

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Kingdom, as and by way of extension of the Appellant's existing steel business and hence claimed by the Appellant as deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). 2.1 Without prejudice to the foregoing ground, the Interest amounting to₹ 518,75,84,534 ought to have been allowed under Section ... assessee is that interest expenditure incurred by it is for the purpose of business and hence, allowable expenditure within the meaning of section 36(1)(iii). Facts relating to financing structure as detailed above and the investment made by the assessee including that AY 2008-09 by the step down

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1560/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am &

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

made by Id. AO, observing that the assessee was unable to substantiate the claim as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) by furnishing complete details. It was held that the assessee failed to justify the condition requisite for allowance of debt ... under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Id. AO observed that the similar issue is sub judice for the previous year also. 14.2 The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had taken cognizance of the decision in the case

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1446/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpia, Am &

Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

made by Id. AO, observing that the assessee was unable to substantiate the claim as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) by furnishing complete details. It was held that the assessee failed to justify the condition requisite for allowance of debt ... under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Id. AO observed that the similar issue is sub judice for the previous year also. 14.2 The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had taken cognizance of the decision in the case

Alliance International Tours & Travels, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19

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

small trade balances written off in the normal course of business. 4. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim holding that the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) were not satisfied and that certain amounts were in the nature of advances. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance ... from Aseel Tours & Travels and Rs.1,87,647/- being small trade balances, these represent business receivables written off. After the amendment to section 36(1)(vii), once the amount is written off in the books and arises from business, the deduction cannot be denied unless the revenue establishes that

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

made by the assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia) (c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation ... before the ld. Assessing Officer on the specific query is extracted below: 5. This issue pertains to deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the said issue is squarely covered in favour

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Avigna Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2930/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2930/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

exclusive use and purpose of the facilitating appellant holding Avigna Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: company’s core business activity is an admissible deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Once the interest fee advances given to subsidiary for the purpose of appellant business out of borrowed funds

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

advances amounting to Rs.5,79,93,815/-, in total, disallowed the amount of Rs.86,99,072/- out of such interest expenses under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act and added back to the income of the Assessee. The Ld. Commissioner ultimately deleted such addition of Rs.86 ... utilized for business purpose, then authorities are right in rejecting assessee's claim for deduction of interest on borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii).” 25. Ground No. 1 pertains to the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Act, on the basis of details/clarification/evidences filed