“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)

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which specifically states that, any provision for bad and doubtful debts is not an allowable expenditure unless it qualifies under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR

Section 80I

last issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 31. The relevant facts are that the assessee has given interest free loan & advances to its subsidiary company, namely M/s Bangalore ... advance was given out of own fund. Therefore, no disallowances of proportionate interest is required to be made as per the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. . ITA Nos. 1108 & 1109/Bang/2024 & C.O. No. 25/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 26 33. However, the AO disagreed with the explanation furnished

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1108/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, 10.1, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is modified and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1959/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1959/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2022-23) Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd., 53-54, Delhi Press Building, Ph-Iv, Udyog Vihar, Haryana 122015 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaaci-1530-L बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), C R Building, Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, Ms. Somya Jain & Shri Shivam Gupta, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 15/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Rohit Jain, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return For Ay 2022-23 On 23.10.2022. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Income Of Rs.195.67 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Fund Department. It is trite that an assessee cannot be asked to do what is impossible for him to do. The provisions of Section 36(1)(va) thus requires to be read down appropriately in tune with doctrine of impossibility.” 7. The Division Bench of Tribunal in the case

Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4415/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

disallowed an amount of Rs. 14,22,381/- relating to inconsistency in amount of interest paid in respect of borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the 143(1) order and subsequently in the assessment order passed under section ... appellant may be verified and if the contentions are correct, all these additions relating to interest paid in respect of borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) (Rs. 14,22,381) and inconsistency in total amount of disallowance under section 37 (Rs. 8,38,26,004) shall be deleted. Similarly

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Kerala)/[2009] 221 CTR 613 (Kerala) [19-12-2007] held that, admittedly, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and the assessee by making the claim was trying whether the officer could be persuaded to commit a mistake and get the claim approved

M/S Shakti Spinners Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/CHANDI/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/PUN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)

interest up to date of agreement at Rs.1,42,04,274/- and made addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the Assessing Officer noted that even after entering into the Joint Venture agreement, no work is commenced ... termed as diversion of interest bearing funds. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, set aside the order

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 925/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Sogani, CA, Ld. AR (Thro. V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Dausa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dausa vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

ITA 1403/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Dausa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dausa vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

ITA 1402/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Lall Construction Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4206/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4206/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Lall Construction Company, Acit, Plot No.28, Third Floor, Vs. Centralized Processing Centre, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Karuna Kunj, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi. No.48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Pan No. Aacfl0648M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37

erred on facts and in law, in making the disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI and PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,72,180/- during the relevant Assessment Year. The NFAC vide its order dated 18.07.2024 too has grossly erred

Origin Foods Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Ward 5(1) Che, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl

Section 133(6)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

appellant. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant did not full fill the requirements of Section 36(1) (vil) read with Section 36 (2) (1) and Para 9.4 of Circular No. 12 dated 30/05/2016. 3. The Appellant submits that the conclusion of the Commissioner ... Income Tax was not based on facts and it is submitted that the appellant had fulfilled all the requirements of Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The Appellant submits that

Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd, Dombivali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6089/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Tejaswi S. Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hari Kishan Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Infin Services Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 has deleted the phrase “which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year” from section 36(1)(vii). This clearly showed that it is not for the assessee now, i. e. after the amendment of the clause with effect from 1

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 3059/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Assessment Year 2015-16. In this respect, we find that claim of any bad debts is to be allowed in terms of section 36(1)(vii) in the year in which such bad debts have actually been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In this respect

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2814/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2813/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Sanjeeta Chatterjee, Dubai vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Vikas Joshi Vs. Ito5(2)(5) Noida B-156, New Ashok Nagar Delhi -110096 Pan No. Acppj6246C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH