← 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)

Intelligent Communication System India Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5532/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarintelligent Communication System India Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (1), First Floor, Administrative Building, Delhi. Okhla Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aaaci0691N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farhat Miyan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 03.06.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Rs.1,38,75,883/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Is Wrong, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Miyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case and in law the ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of the Rs.1,38,75,883/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The action of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) is wrong

Baldev Singh & Sons, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3103/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

under section 139 of the Act. Further, the AO-CPC also disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 6,808/- of PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act which was not acceded to on the reasoning ... provident fund deposited after the specified date. 3.2 The disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act and the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act as mentioned above are in dispute before us. 4. The Ld. AR Submitted that the core issue involved in this appeal