← 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)

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Brinda Rameswaran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

bank and a banking company have been treated separate and independent from each other for which our reference was also drawn to Section 36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified person is responsible

Kokan Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 7. On the facts and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs. 55,00,000/- which is allowable deduction to the Appellant bank.” Page 2 of 9 ITA No. 1730/Mum/2024 ... reserve for standard assets u/s 36(1)(viii) as per the RBI circular dated 02.07.2012 and is therefore allowable. Relevant provisions of section 36(1)(viii) are reproduced as under: “36(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

Kokan Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 7. On the facts and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs. 55,00,000/- which is allowable deduction to the Appellant bank.” Page 2 of 9 ITA No. 1730/Mum/2024 ... reserve for standard assets u/s 36(1)(viii) as per the RBI circular dated 02.07.2012 and is therefore allowable. Relevant provisions of section 36(1)(viii) are reproduced as under: “36(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

M/S. Multi Service, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 39(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1180/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Natabrata Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: L.N. Dash, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

Rules and not in Part XII of the Rules. This Rule is applicable to an approved superannuation fund for claiming deduction under section 36(1) (iv) of the Act which states that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognised provident fund

The Louis Berger Group Inc, Gugaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomne Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2630/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Louis Berger Group Inc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 3, Surinder Jakhir Dcit/Acit, International Bhawan, Sector-32, Gurgaon Taxation, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl4067F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vazanta, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

stating as under:- “1. That as required by law, bad debt has been written off in its books of accounts as per section 36(1)(vii) rw section 36(2) of the Act 2. The said debts could not be recovered by the assessee on account of commercial reasons ... find that the assessee had duly complied with all the conditions 10. prescribed in Section 36(2) read with section 36(1)(vii) of the Act to claim deduction on account of bad debts. The assessee is not required to prove that a particular debt had become bad debt

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore (Jurisdictional AO : the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 543/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in upholding adjustment of Rs. 3,34,28,177/- on account of payment of employees’ contribution to National Pension Scheme (NPS) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, made while passing intimation order u/s 143(1) of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that ... loss amount stated in the revised return. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer at the CPC made a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) concerning employees' contributions to the National Pension Scheme (NPS), amounting to Rs. 3,34,28,177/-. Being aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee

Bosch Rexroth (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 448/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

under the directions of Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs 111 10 300/under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1961 The Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld AO in relation to the disallowance of provision for doubtful

Hagglunds Drives (India) Pvt. Ltd. ( Now Merged in Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 931/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

under the directions of Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs 111 10 300/under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1961 The Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld AO in relation to the disallowance of provision for doubtful

Kedar Shashank Ranade, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -2, Pune

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

ITA 1233/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

under consideration. Since the assessee has not charged any interest, therefore, the Assessing Officer examined the issue with respect to the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.6,25,496/- in respect

Ishan Equipments Private Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara, Chakli Circle

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

ITA 235/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.235/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Survey No.144-15, Nh No.8 Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. Sankharda Vadodara Nr. Police Chowki Vadodara – 391 350 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci 4131 R (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43B

additions, including: • Disallowance of penalty expenditure amounting to Rs.4,81,985/- under section 37. • Disallowance of bad debts of Rs.24,50,304/- under section 36(1)(vii). 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the remaining ... books, and there is no need to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. The AR argued that all the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act were satisfied, and therefore the disallowance was unjustified. 5. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of lower authorities

Ammayapper Textiles Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1201/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1201/Chny/2024 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Muralidharan, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

that i.e., both the contributions were to be treated differently since the inception and the contribution was always subjected to the records of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. PCIT. Hence, the appeal

Neeraj Dadhich, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1142/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee has challenged the decision of the ld. JCIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s 143(1) by invoking section 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of 4 Neeraj Dadhich v. ADIT, CPC employees contribution to PF & ESI contributions. The ld. AR has contended ... supra) holds that the deductions can be claimed or adjustments can be made under section 141(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the employees Provident fund/employees state Insurance

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

property to be constructed and deduction of TDS u/s 194A on such assured return, treating the same as interest is therefore, allowable under section 36(1) (iii). Accordingly, addition of Rs 42,87,700/- is deleted and this ground is decided in favour of the appellant.” 16. The issue

Diya Hygiene Flours Private Limited, Nadiad vs. The PCIT (Central) Surat, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69BSection 69C

Rs.9,13,230/- was made on account of cessation of liability and addition of Rs.88,654/- was made on account of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC ... 271AAC of the Act. Further, the PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cessation of liability and addition under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on both of which penalty provisions of Section 270A of the Act are attracted but the same was not initiated

Tmilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 788/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The Acit, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [Pan: Aaact 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Aarav Fragrance and Flavors Pvt Ltd, Thane Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One Thane

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

ITA 301/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Acit, Circle-1, Thane, Private Limited Maharashtra Plot A-152/153, Wagle Industrial Vs. Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400604. Pan: Aagca 2145 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 29Section 36(2)

before the 9 Aarav Fragrances And Flavors Private Limited A.Y. 2016-17 Ld.AO. However, the Ld.AO proceeded to verify the requirement as per section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act, for the reason that the assessee nomenclated these expenditure to be bad debt. 4.7. Before the Ld.CIT

M/S. Rameshwar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO -20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1797/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChajjedFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

under Section 143(3) of the Act vide, Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, making, inter alia, aforesaid addition of INR 2,14,219/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The relevant extract of the Assessment Order reads as under: “On perusal of profit and loss account, it has been ... relevant details were furnished before the Assessing Officer and only after duly appreciating the same, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was contended that the amount of interest to be disallowed cannot be computed on the basis of closing balance

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 228/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(iv)

1,04,705/- of Employees’ Contribution to PF and Rs. 1,04,705/- of employees’ contribution to ESI under section 36(1)(iv)/36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961. The action of the NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please

Tmf Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2031/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

Rs.39,86,33,662/- being interest paid on perpetual debentures which the assessee has claimed the same as a deductible expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. The ld. AO has disallowed the said claim on the following reasons:- “What is allowable u/s 36(1 ... event and did not have a maturity date, such instrument is more akin to an equity instrument. Coming back to the provisions of section 36(1)(H) of the Act. which provides for allowance of the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital burrowed, it is well settled

M/S. Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sultanpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 647/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2015-16 M/S Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Pr. Cit, Faizabad Ltd., Near Collectorate, Allahabad Vs. Road, Civil Lines, Sultanpur, U.P. Pan:Aanas6008C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. J.L. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. J.L. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

observed that there was credible material with the ld. Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment that indicated violation of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rendered the said amount as income liable to be taxed under section