← 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)

Vitthal Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Solapur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Solapur

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1540/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Ashta Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. / Ita Nos.1540/Pun/2024 / Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakar Vs Acit Circle1, Solapur Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Gursale, Tal. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur-413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaas3892H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. Hanmant Dhavle (Ar) Revenue By Mr.Arvind Desai (Dr) Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of 31/12/2024 Pronouncement / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 30.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.4,56,57,548/- On Account Of Excess Sugar Cane Price

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xvii)

filed appeal before this Tribunal. It is observed that Section 36 has been amended wef 2016. Sub clause (xvii) has been added to Section 36(1) of the Act. The said sub clause is reproduced here as under : 36 (1)(xvii) the amount of expenditure incurred by a co-operative ... sugarcane at a price which is equal to or less than the price fixed or approved by the Government.. Thus as per section 36(1)(xvii) the sugar cane price fixed by Government is allowed as deduction . In this case admittedly the assessee has paid more price than