← 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)

Arumuganadar Narayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 806/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arumuga Nadar Narayanan, No. 20/57, New Thandavaraya Gramani Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aadpn-2730-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-17, Vide Order Dated 07.03.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Bad In Law As The Same Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law. :-2-:

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री महावीर सिंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

ACIT Corp Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Amtex Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contribution to ESI and EPF u/s. 43B of the Act, which is actually applicable to employers part of contribution, then the provisions of section 36(1) (va) and 2(24)(x) of the Act, which governs the situation arising out of non-payment of employees contribution

ITO, Cw-6(3), Chennai vs. Sify Infinit Spaces Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No. 1652/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Sify Infinit Spaces Limited, Cw-6(3), Vs. No.4, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai-600113 No. [Pan: Aazcs5147A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063757208(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2022-23. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By Additional / Jcit, Lucknow. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

Rs.8,06,12,975/- in clause 21(i) of the tax audit :- 3 -: report as sum disallowance as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act with respect to interest payments on borrowed capital. However, in the return of income, the disallowance of Rs.8,06,12,975/- reported under