← 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)

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

directed the assessee to provide for nonperforming assets, that direction cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Income-tax Act contained in section 36(1)(viia) which stipulate for deduction not exceeding 5 per cent of the total income only in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts ... which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

directed the assessee to provide for nonperforming assets, that direction cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Income-tax Act contained in section 36(1)(viia) which stipulate for deduction not exceeding 5 per cent of the total income only in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts ... which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

directed the assessee to provide for nonperforming assets, that direction cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Income-tax Act contained in section 36(1)(viia) which stipulate for deduction not exceeding 5 per cent of the total income only in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts ... which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt

DCIT(CC)-7(3), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Churchgate vs. Macrotech Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2017-18 Dcit (Cc)-7(3, Mumbai Macrotech Developers Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400020. Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacl 1490 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria's case (supra). The learned Court was considering section 36(1)(iii) and was pleased to observe as under :— "The only enquiry that is to be made is whether the payment of interest ... because the section specifically bars any deduction of expenditure of capital nature. But section 36 is differently worded. There is no bar in section 36(1)(iii) to allowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed which has been utilised for purchase of a capital asset. The position

Kandla Export Corporation, Gandhidham vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

blocked in fixed assets in making the disallowance. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the disallowance is made by the assessing officer invoking section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, however, from IT(SS)A No.135, 136, 177, 178/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12, 2012-13 Kandla Exports Corporation the data furnished ... assessee. We find that the provisions of IT(SS)A No.135, 136, 177, 178/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12, 2012-13 Kandla Exports Corporation section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, are enabling provisions, whereby interest claimed is required to be allowed, as a deduction to the assessee, provided the claim is genuine

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, we upheld the

ITA 1458/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194ASection 36Section 40

only capitalized a sum of Rs. 25,69,31,741/-, hence the difference amount of Rs. 17,73,52,597/- was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 19. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the interest of Rs. 2,23,50,09,129/- being total ... done after carrying out the calculation on scientific basis following the well accepted accounting policy which is in consonance with the provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted that the accounts of the assessee have been audited by the Statutory Auditors as well

Amenity Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 668/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 10(2) Amenity Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, 181, Dumdum Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700074 Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica4412D Assessee By : Shri Vidhi Ladia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vidhi Ladia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

issue raised in ground no.2(c) is without a prejudice ground that the Amenity Appliances Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2018-19 Provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24) of the Act do not apply to the employers contribution

Dsp Adiko Holding Pvt Ltd, Mumba vs. Dy. CIT - Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 41(1)

given as a loan to Mr. Ramalinga Raju represents a business loss under Section 28(i) or a bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii). However, the AO disallowed the claim, treating the loan 3 DSP Adiko Holdings Pvt. Ltd., as a capital transaction with no revenue impact ... business loss or bad debt. The appellant has not been able to establish how this loss qualifies under Section 28(i) or Section 36(1) (vii). Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- is upheld.” 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the facts

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Remi Securities Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

disallowance of the bed debts of Rs.2,82,32,482/- claimed by the appellant, despite the compliance with the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the claim of bed debt due to non delivery

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 2323/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

interest expense amounting to Rs.2,04,20,10,031/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly provides for deduction of interest expenses on the loan raised for business purposes and assessee failed

Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1988/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

interest expense amounting to Rs.2,04,20,10,031/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly provides for deduction of interest expenses on the loan raised for business purposes and assessee failed

Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kantha Rao Grandhi, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.93/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2021-22) Venkata Satya Lakshmi Kantha Rao V. Dcit, Grandhi, Circle-1(1), Guntur. Guntur. [Pan: Aatpn3851F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

Court in the case of Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. CIT (supra) has dealt with the identical issue by interpreting the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act and held as under: - “54. In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning in the impugned judgment ... audit reports filed by the assessee where the disallowance was not suomoto made by the assessee. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the CPC is within its powers to disallow a wrong claim made by the assessee while filing the return of income which

Sampratik News Services P.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 949/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 949/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Sampratik News Service Pvt. Limited,………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 2023, Off. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajcs6065R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, where such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividend under section 36(1)(ii) and accordingly addition of such sum by way of adjustment was conceived by the ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer framed an assessment order

Mfa Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: filing return of income u/s.139(1);

For Appellant: Shri Chetna BohraFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

employees contribution to PF and ESIC amounting to INR.54,767/- on account of payment made beyond the due date as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”) but before filing return of income u/s.139(1); 3. Denying

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

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

paid by him. xx xx Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions ... could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously

Ujwala Developers Private Limited, Hanamkonda vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 1219/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

directed the Tribunal to hear the appeals before it on the limited grounds urged by the appellant, namely, disallowance of finance charges under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings ... consideration in the instant assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.51,28,612/- made by the AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that as on 31.03.2016 the assessee company

Ujwala Developers Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 1218/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

directed the Tribunal to hear the appeals before it on the limited grounds urged by the appellant, namely, disallowance of finance charges under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings ... consideration in the instant assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.51,28,612/- made by the AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that as on 31.03.2016 the assessee company

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R R Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2502/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2502/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. R R Industries Limited, Income Tax, Tvk Industrial Estate, Company Circle 1(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacr 3594H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

purpose of the said business, the amount of interest paid in respect of the capital borrowed is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as rightly held by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals ... analyzing that the payment of interest on borrowed funds has to be tested on the ground of quantum of return is untenable. Furthermore, section 36(1)(iii) does not contemplate any test that the amounts so invested should be wholly and exclusively for making or eaming such income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Ms Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

debts holding that dues from Govt agencies cannot be allowed as deduction. Before us, Assessee submitted that after 1.4.1989, provisions of section 36(1)(vii), dealing with deduction of bad debts written off has under gone a change. Thereafter, it is not necessary for an Assessee to establish that ... debt has become bad for it to be allowed and section 36(1)(vii). It will be sufficient if the assessee rights of the debt in the books of account and claims it as a deduction. The Supreme Court in the case of TRF limited