“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)

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

alleged to be diverted for non- business or personal purposes. Thus, the allowability of the claim whether under section 24(b) or under section 36(1)(iii) or under section 57 does not alter the total income of the appellant. Hence, the entire issue becomes academic in nature. Respectfully following

DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estate Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

course of assessment proceeding, the AO noticing that employees' contribution to PF was not paid within the due date prescribed in terms with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') disallowed the deduction claimed. Learned First Appellate Authority confirmed the disallowance. 5. Before ... Income Tax, learned First Appellate Authority upheld the disallowance. 35. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that as per Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, in absence of any such condition prescribed by the Board, the PCIT cannot by himself imposed, conditions. He submitted, even

Grasim Industries Ltd 9Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 5982/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 36(1)(va)

Vardhman Special Steels Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

ITA 79/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

facts while upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure on notional basis amounting to Rs.8,16,010/- on investments under the provisions of Section 36(1) (iii) of The Act. 5. Without pre-judice to ground no.4, the National Faceless Appeal Centre /Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing ... taxable income. The AO also started penalty proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting income. 3.2 The AO disallowed interest under Section 36(1)(iii), stating that the assessee's investment of Rs.8,14,98,234/- in shares and mutual funds was not for business purposes, as the company

Sanjeev Kumar Bakshi, Haryana vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2 5. The Facts In Brief Are That The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc, Bangalore, Disallowing Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi To The Extent Of Rs. 29,87,930/-, Relying Upon The Dates Of Actual Payment Furnished In The Tax Audit Report, Which Indicated That The Payments Were Made Beyond The Statutory Due Dates.

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 100] and the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, which inserted Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va), clarifying that the provisions of section 43B do not apply to employees’ contributions. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused ... return of income. 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that section 43B applies only to employer’s contributions and that section 36(1)(va) governs the employees’ share, and the same must be deposited within the time prescribed under the relevant welfare Acts. 7.2. Respectfully following

Rose Serviced Apartments (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 68

allowing set off of same was not justified. 7. The next issue is in respect of the disallowance of Rs.60,00,000/- under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had advanced the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- to K.M.B. Exports ... been offered for tax in the ITR. 17. The last issue is in respect of the disallowance of bad debt claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded for its allowance alternatively under section 37 of the Act as business loss. The AO, in para

Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Rajkot vs. Assistat Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

that as the Saurashtra Gramin Bank is a scheduled bank incorporated under the laws of Regional Rural Bank, so the benefit under the section 36(1)(viia) was available to it. It did not give requirement/need assessment for the provision. Further, as per the P/L account, no fresh provision ... note that learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to the tune of Rs.75,85,935/-, claimed by the assessee, as a deduction under section 36 (1) (via) of the Act, however addition made by the assessing officer, on account of NPA provisions, to the tune of Rs. 448.09 lakhs

Adroit Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Churchgate

In the result, the appeal as well the stay application of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6288/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neera SawantFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

paid after the due date stipulated under the respective Acts , accordingly he disallowed the claim of the assessee in term of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Secondly, regarding loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- to Shri. Mukesh, the assessee failed to substantiate Adroit Corporate Services Private

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, New Delhi vs. CIT Appeals-25, New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

Year 2020-21. 2.Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Disallowance as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well as on facts in adding ... provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. 2 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 2. Penalty Proceedings initiated u/s 270A(2)(a)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well

Bajajsons Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 935/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 935/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Bajajsons Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ C-103 Phase V Focal Point Central Circle Iii Vs. Ludhiana 141010 Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6875-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021- 22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 27-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issue By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 04-03-2021 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.5.44 Lacs In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 14BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Court 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)(va)]. The former forms ... 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

Kuldeep Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward (3) (1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 717/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 717/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Kuldeep Singh Ito Ward No (3)(1) बनाम/ 33F Jmd Mall Opp. Railway Station Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Punjab 141001 Rishi Nagar, Punjab. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bchps-1635-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22-04-2024 In The Matter Of An Rectification Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 154 Of The Act On 21-06-2023. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Left With No Option, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Stated That The Issue Stood Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

Satish Kumar Rana, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kangra Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1190/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 1190/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satish Kumar Rana Ito-Ward 42(3)(3) बनाम/ H.No. 90, Dhaniara, Duhak Mumbai Vs. Thural, Kangra, Hp – 176075 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaupr-3944-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Written Submissions ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 18-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 16-12-2019. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, The Written Submissions As Filed By The Assessee Were Duly Considered. The Ld. Sr. Dr Stated That The Issue Stood Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 281 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 24/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

fact that the assessee has got sufficient own funds to extend the loans interest free, we hereby direct that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) be deleted.” 7. Further, it is see that ld. CIT(A), while deleting the disallowance has followed the aforesaid order of the Tribunal ... under appeal in the computation of income. However, Page | 5 ITA Nos. 22 to 24/Del/2024 such claim is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed for restoration of the disallowance made by AO. 14. On the other hand, the learned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 23/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 22/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

ACIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi vs. Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(tii)Section 37Section 37(1)

assessee was assessed at INR 3,25,561/- by making disallowance of INR 1,89,40,151/-, after invoking the provision of section 36(1)(iii) and further disallowance of INR 15 Lakhs was made under Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Against such order, the assessee preferred appeal ... time of hearing of appeal.” 5. All the grounds by the Revenue are in relation to the deletion of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The AO has made the disallowance by observing that the assessee has made “non current investment” in its subsidiary

ACIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi vs. Green Infra Wind Farm Assets Ltd., Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7044/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(tii)Section 37Section 37(1)

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

loan taken from HDFC Bank. 3 Therefore, the AO disallowed the entire deduction claimed. An alternative claim made by the assessee under Section 36(1)(iii) was also rejected, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the loan was used for business purposes. Further, penalty proceedings

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in its proper perspective. Disallowance of delayed contribution of employees contribution to ESIC under section 36(1) (va) of the Act 6. The learned AO has erred in confirming the disallowance on account of delayed contribution of employees contribution to ESIC under section ... filed for the year under consideration and hence, do not warrant disallowance. Disallowance of delayed contribution of employees contribution to ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 5. The learned ADIT-CPC has erred in making disallowance on account of delayed contribution of employees contribution to ESIC under