← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded vs. Latur District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

written submissions of the appellant. The man issue in depute in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of The Income Tax Act respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts for an amount ... purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(via), the assessee must satisfy twin conditions of 1) being an entity specified under section 36(1)(via) and 2) having debited or provided for bad and doubtful debts in its accounts As per section 36(1) (vi) of the Income

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

I.T.Act, 1961 on four issues. The Ld.PCIT has questioned deductions allowed towards bad debt written off under the provision of section 36(1)(vii) & (viia), including newly inserted Explanation (2) to section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Likewise, the Ld.PCIT has questioned payment towards contribution to gratuity fund ... written off, in respect of non rural advances. Further, at the time of consideration of the issue, the newly inserted Explanation(2) to section 36(1)(vii) was very much on in the statue. Therefore, the Ld.PCIT is incorrect in stating that the Ld. AO ought to have conducted required

Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Diebold Systems Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

respective accounts within the stipulated period provided u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with the provisions contained in PF & ESIC Acts. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act very clearly provides that if employees contribution to PF & ESIC are not paid within the stipulated time period, such amount ... contribution to PF & ESIC cannot be allowed as deduction, the assessee cannot expect the very same relief under another provision. More so, when section 36(1)(va) of the Act (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2014-15) Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited vs. CIT mandates that such contribution has to be treated

Diebold Nixdorf India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

respective accounts within the stipulated period provided u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with the provisions contained in PF & ESIC Acts. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act very clearly provides that if employees contribution to PF & ESIC are not paid within the stipulated time period, such amount ... contribution to PF & ESIC cannot be allowed as deduction, the assessee cannot expect the very same relief under another provision. More so, when section 36(1)(va) of the Act (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2014-15) Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited vs. CIT mandates that such contribution has to be treated

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2979/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 1

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited( As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited (Merged Entity Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 4217/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Ltd., (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3717/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Delhi

ITA 2048/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1893/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1892/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1891/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5885/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ni

Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB ... aforesaid two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed and held that section 36(1)(viii) grants deduction in respect of profits derived from “business of providing long term finance”. The word “business of” is of wider import, which cannot