“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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

made by the assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia)(c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation ... entire claim for bad debts write off is allowable to the assessee in light of detailed note enclosed on applicability of proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1)(vita)(c) of the Act as Annexure 2 for your kind perusal. Your goodself will appreciate that assessee has rightly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Jhansi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shailener Shrivastava, Sr. DR

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

parte. 3. Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that the very issue of the assessee’s eligibility to claim section 36(1)(viia) deduction, had arisen between the parties in the 2 ITA No.136/Agr./2023 Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. preceding assessment year 2016-17 involving

Chandra Goswami, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claims for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act of 1961 were disallowed, inasmuch as, on the said date, the issue with regard to delayed deposit of contribution with ... supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed a division of opinion on the issue of interpretation under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961, with the High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi favouring the interpretation beneficial to the assessees

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6316/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessee under Section 271AAB of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR.23,67,555/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance Corporation ... entitled to claim deduction for the same (even though the same were deposited after the expiry to statutory period) in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. However, the aforesaid claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer 2 Assessment Year

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

levied on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR.1,57,53,261/-, made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty ... Perusal of the record shows that deduction of INR.1,57,53,261/- was claimed by the Assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) by placing reliance upon the judgment

Ivtl Infoview Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2916/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2916/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ivtl Infoview Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, No.2/319, 3F, Corporate Circle Ii(2) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai 600 034. Oggiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [Pan: Aaaci 7550A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

statutory deadlines under the PF and ESI Acts, and therefore are deemed as income under Section 2(24)(x) and disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P). Ltd. Vs CIT [2022] 143 txmann.com 178 / [2023] 290 Taxman ... relevant funds is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated in respective Acts." Based on the explicit language of Section 36(1) (va) and its legislative intent, the AO's decision to disallow the deduction is consistent with the statute. As the appellant failed to comply with

Kohinoor Televideo Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(2)(1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6325/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

note that the case of assessee pertains to AY 2017-18. This is to further bring to your notice that the amendment to section 36 (1)(va) and section 43B of the Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. 3. This is further proved ... income u/s.139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable as deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1) (va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act. 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective

M/S. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6274/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: M/s. Sonali Godbole, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

disallowing and CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC and LWF amounting to Rs.11,84,822/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.0. CPC erred in making addition under section 41 of the Act and CIT (A) erred confirming the said addition

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

Grounds of Appeal No. 01 to 02 :- These grounds of appeal are against to the addition of Rs.1,89,01,924/- under Section 36 (1)(va) of the IT Act. 4.1.1 It is admitted fact that employees' contribution towards PF/ESI was deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the relevant ... appellant from its employees towards EPF and ESIC is the income in the hands of the appellant Further, as per provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, if such contribution is deposited in the relevant fund within due date prescribed under relevant Act, the same will be allowed

DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Paranjape Schemes Construction Limited, Vile Parle East, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5501/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income-tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider the purpose for which the loan was obtained. In the present case ... assessee. That, the Project did not constitute a fixed asset of the assessee. In this case, we are concerned with deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Since the assessee had received loan for obtaining stock-in-trade (Kandivali Project), the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 36(1

Jade Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

ITA 5490/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)

additions: i. Addition under section 23(1)(a) under the head "Income from House Property" – Rs. 1,26,40,656/- ii. Disallowance under section 36(1)(3) towards proportionate interest – Rs. 59,18,321/- iii. Disallowance under section 14(A) r.w.r. 8D towards expenditure incurred related to exempt income

Jade Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

ITA 5466/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)

Jade Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

ITA 5465/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)

Paranjape Schemes Construction Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5274/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 681/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(45)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and excluding income under the head capital gains. Attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act which provides for provision for bad and doubtful debts in the case of a schedule bank not being a bank ... CBDT in the Instruction No. 17/2008, dated 26/11/2008. The relevant clause of the Instruction reads as under:- I.T.A. No. 681/Bang/2015 4 “(iii) Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act provides that in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts of the type referred to in that

Amjad Ahmadbhai Sheikh, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT-Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Laxman AndaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)

Employee's Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the "due date" as per the explanation below section 36(1) (va) of the IT Act, 1961, the same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

before the due date of filing of the returns under Section 139 thus no disallowance could be made u-s 43B or section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s State Bank ... prescribed time of relevant statues of PF/ESI. X X X (ii) This amount of Rs.24,14,531/- was legally disallowable in terms of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) However, while finalizing the assessment on 15/04/2021, no such disallowance is made

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

Performing Assets and Non Performing Assets and as far as the provisions on Non Performing Assets, the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and as far as the provisions for Performing Assets is concerned, the same have been set off against the interest ... accordingly submitted it is fairly incorrect on part of the AO to held that the assessee has made any such claim under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and reference was drawn to para 7.1 of the impugned assessment order wherein the assessee bank was asked to explain

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)