“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)

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

aforesaid appeal, the Assessee has filed cross objections. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 24,37,53,214/- being interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act both on facts ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned CIT(A) erred invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to disallow the following amounts out of interest expenditure by holding that the advancing of interest free loan to 100% subsidiaries did not fall within

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

giving any opportunity of being heard. 2. The Auditor have by mistakenly putted the total amount of PF and ESIC whereas as per section 36(1)(va) only the Employee Contribution towards PF and ESIC is to be reported. 3. Without understanding the nature of Business ... order dated 19th December 2023, confirmed the adjustment of Rs.1.11,01,285/- towards delayed contribution of PF/ESIC under section 36(1)(va). Thus, Rs. 97.25.003/- towards Employer's contribution was fully allowed as it was paid before due date of filing the return of income. 6) Further, I was advised

Satidham Syntex Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 3611/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil P.Ramesh,Sr.DR

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

Profit & Loss Account. The same has been added by the Assessing Officer for want of supporting evidences and compliance to the provisions of section 36(1)(vii).The ld.CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of bad debts u/s 36(1

Satidham Syntex Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 3610/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil P.Ramesh,Sr.DR

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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-I/C DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1835/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

towards claims Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and claims Incurred But Not Enough Reported (IBNER) The above deduction was claimed under section 36(1) of the Act. The basis of the claim was that the provision has been made for all the unsettled claims on the basis of the claims

DCIT, Cir-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1834/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1816/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1815/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

years under consideration on this issue. C. Issue 3: On the issue of the disallowance made by the Ld.AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the act, relying on the decision of Hon’able Bombay High Court in case of Reliance Utility reported in 313 ITR 340 and HDFC Bank ... stands dismissed. Ground No.4 in the cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of deleting the addition made under section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. The revenue alleges the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue in ground no. 3 for A.Y.2008-09. It is noted

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 723/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 722/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4290/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dow Chemical International Private Dy. Cit, Circle 14(1)(2) Limited Mumbai Unit No. 801, 8Th Floor, Building No.9, Vs. Gigaplex, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708

For Appellant: Shri Hemang MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Appellant even though there was no imminent statutory due date in the matter. Disallowance of Rs 5,98,22,466 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Erred in confirming disallowance of Rs 5,98,22,466 under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice

Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4023/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 56(2)(x)Section 928(2)

andwould have no bearing on the income tax implications regarding interest expenditure on CCDs. 17. Further, with regard to allowability of interest under section 36(1)(iii), the Ld.AR submitted that as CCDs are debt instruments until their conversion, interest paid on CCDs should be considered as ‘interest on borrowings ... from issuance of CCDs are in the nature of ‘capital borrowed for the purpose of business. Consequently, interest ought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, as a legitimate business expense. 18. The Ld.AR also alternatively submitted that the CCDs were issued to raise funds

M/S. Tirubala International Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Kanpur

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

ITA 147/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

read in conjunction with section 43B(b) 1 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd. and due date as mentioned in section 36(1)(va) is the due date as mentioned in section 43B (b). 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing ... towards ESIC was paid after the due date and was disallowable in the light of the explanation to the provisions of section 36(1)(va). Since, the assessee did not submit any reply, the amount of Rs.29,164/- towards ESIC paid after the due date was disallowed under section 36

Ravindra Khandelwal, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Akola, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 36Section 68Section 69A

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 9. The next issue which arose out of ground no.4, relates to interest under section 36)\(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed a part of the interest considering it as interest on capital not borrowed ... officer. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 8,33,238 made on account of interest on loan 3.1 The AO has made a disallowance under section 36(1) (iii) to the tune of Rs. 8,33,238. The same has been discussed in para 17 of the assessment order. 3.2 During

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Akola Circle, Akola vs. Akola Urban Co-Oprative Bank Ltd, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

allowing loss on sale of NPA to asset reconstruction company(ARC) of Rs. 10,40,79,321/- in contravention to provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in treating revaluation ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in overlooking the provisions of I.T. Act contained in section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing with the permission

D.C.I.T., Circle 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5792/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]

Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

been explained by the CBDT in Circular I.T.A. No. 5792/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2013 16 No. 551 dated 23/01/1990 and after amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/1989, if a debt has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice ... which has confirmed the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal which has held that after amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 01/04/1989, it is not obligatory on part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off is bad and if the same is written

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5396/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]

Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A