← 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)

Rahul Berry, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.451/Chd/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 Rahul Berry, Vs. The Acit, Prop. Berry Cotton Industries, बनाम Circle Ii, B-Xiii-1661,Karimpaura Ludhiana Chowk, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Abkpb0070A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. S.K Mukhi, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Mukhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl CIT, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

submitted before the lower authorities. It was accordingly submitted that there was no basis for disallowance of proportionate interest invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival ... reflected at the year end. In light of the same, we find that there is no basis to invoke the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside. The ground of appeals

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1)1(), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Abhay Benara, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

Benara group nor there is any business nexus with the funds given to Benara group on loan, therefore as per the provision of section 36(1)(iii) this interest paid Rs.12,79,271/- is not an allowable expenditure. Addition made is therefore sustained on this ground.” Page

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 263

debited by the assessee for Standard Assets Provisions which is not allowable as per provision of sections of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Further it was also noticed by her that while computing taxable income as per Income Tax Act, on account of “Syndication fees for CCPS issue ... Advances) to the Profit and Loss account, an amount of Rs. 30,63,618/- was debited for 'Standard Assets Provisions. As per section 36(1)(via) of the Act:- "in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank [ not being a bank incorporated

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Buldhana vs. DCIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)

doubtful debts was not allowed upto A.Y. 2006-07. From A.Y. 07-08 provision for Bad and doubtful debts has become allowable under section 36(1)(viia) @ 7.5% of the Net Income and 10% of Average Rural Advances. The assessee has made reversal of the NPA Provision ... doubtful debts was not allowed upto A.Y. 2006-07. From A.Y. 07-08 provision for Bad and doubtful debts has become allowable under section 36(1)9viia) @ 7.5% of the Net Income and 10% of Average Rural Advances. The assessee has made reversal of the NPA Provision

Alok Dadu, Modi Nagar vs. Addljcit(A)-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 613/LKW/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Alok Dadu V. The Ito-2(4) H. No.310, Gali No.3 Pilibhit Bharampuri Modi Nagar Tan/Pan:Acdod4702B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(c)

Audit Report and the return filed by the assessee. The AO noticed that in the Audit Report at Point No.20(b), under section 36(1)(c) of ITA No.613/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 5 the Act, the amount mentioned in Annexure 3CD(b) was Rs.6,83,290/-, whereas in the Return

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

Travel Expenses – Rs.35,60,621/- • Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses – Rs.1,20,95,071/- • Addition under Section 68 – Rs.9,06,000/- • Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) – Rs.1,03,440/- • Disallowance of Interest Expenses under Section 36(1)(iii) – Rs.27,73,725/- • Discrepancy in Form 26AS and P&L Account ... However, these contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), employees' contributions to PF/ESI must be deposited within the due dates prescribed under the relevant Acts

Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Thiruvananhapuram

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

accounts for the year ended 31.03.2018 had given a qualification that the bank is not claiming Income Tax deductions under section 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) in its tax computations, which if claimed, can reduce the tax outgo of the Bank significantly. To overcome this qualification ... necessary provision in the accounts for claiming the deduction. Further the appellant on recognising the fact of not to claim the allowance under section 36(1)(viia) unless the provision for the bad and doubtful assets are provided in the books of accounts, the appellant paid the full demand

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

disallowing Rs.33.20 Crs. is concerned we find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee, as per stipulations of section 36(1)(vii), a provision is allowed as deduction only in the year of write off and the contention of the Ld. AO regarding appellant enjoying

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 4302/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4300/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4298/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4297/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4295/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which ... erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Ramee Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 6 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4293/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

interest paid towards Installment Facility of lease amount would be 'revenue' in nature. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in pressing into service, section 36(1)(iii) which has no application to the facts at hand. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

expenditure made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee’s Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted as under ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

expenditure made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee’s Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted as under ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

expenditure made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee’s Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted as under ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

appellant contends that both Assessing officer and learned commissioner erred in treating premium to be paid on FCCB bonds as interest falling under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. The appellant contends that the premium payable on redemption of bonds falls to be allowed as a expenditure ... erroneous. 5. In any event the proportionate premium of Rs.35,35,167 is allowable u/s 37(1) and does not fall under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T.Act. 3 Allcargo Gati Limited 6. The appellant contends that the disallowance of proportionate premium of Rs. 68,19,473 towards amounts