← 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.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2248/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. 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

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

basis of sworn statements. With respect to the disallowances made u/s. 35(2AB), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(i) and (ia), Section 36(1)(ii), Section 40A(2), depreciation, reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80- 1C, there was no reference to the seized material based on which

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

basis of sworn statements. With respect to the disallowances made u/s. 35(2AB), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(i) and (ia), Section 36(1)(ii), Section 40A(2), depreciation, reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80- 1C, there was no reference to the seized material based on which

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

basis of sworn statements. With respect to the disallowances made u/s. 35(2AB), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(i) and (ia), Section 36(1)(ii), Section 40A(2), depreciation, reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80- 1C, there was no reference to the seized material based on which

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

basis of sworn statements. With respect to the disallowances made u/s. 35(2AB), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(i) and (ia), Section 36(1)(ii), Section 40A(2), depreciation, reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80- 1C, there was no reference to the seized material based on which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(4), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Parth Plazamorbi

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

respect of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instrument without appreciating the fact that interest paid on them does not fall under the purview of section 36(1)(iii) as the issuing of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instrument lacks the concept of borrowing?" 9. The assessee claimed that above named bonds ... Accounting Standard 16 on "Borrowing Cost" issued by Institute CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank Ltd. of Chartered Accountants of India. As per section 36(1)(iii) "the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession" is allowed as deduction. Since in appellants case

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

respect of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instrument without appreciating the fact that interest paid on them does not fall under the purview of section 36(1)(iii) as the issuing of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instrument lacks the concept of borrowing?" 9. The assessee claimed that above named bonds ... Accounting Standard 16 on "Borrowing Cost" issued by Institute CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank Ltd. of Chartered Accountants of India. As per section 36(1)(iii) "the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession" is allowed as deduction. Since in appellants case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

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

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Vs. Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

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

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA