“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)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kalaburagi vs. The District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd Bidar, Bidar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 215/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

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

perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the assessee has claimed deduction for ₹ 10.50 crores under the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act which was denied by the AO during the assessment proceedings in the absence of supporting documents. However ... section 143(3) of the Act dated 27th April 2021. The ld. CIT-A also observed that assessee was eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to ₹ 10738.75 lakhs whereas the deduction claimed by the assessee was of ₹ 1050 lakhs only. 7.1 From the preceding

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

matter, where it was held that in case payment is made against services provided by the directors, the disallowance cannot be made under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.2. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted that – 1. Shri Girish Chovatia is a qualified MBA (Marketing ... arrangement to avoid dividend distribution tax and Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 4 deduction cannot be allowed under section 36 (1)(ii) of the Act. He also concluded that the board resolution cannot be considered as evidence of extra service provided by the director

Seg Automotive India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 988/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CA

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

only issue that is contested by the assessee in the present appeal is in respect of the disallowance of Rs.94,07,117/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being the employees' contribution to provident fund/ superannuation fund paid beyond the due date as prescribed in the respective

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

issue is whether the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(iii) is in order, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is reopened as under: Other deductions. 36(1)The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein ... disallowance of expenses is to invoke the provision of section 14A rather than invoking of :-9-: ITA. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The argument of the assessee is unacceptable. The investments are not only in share capital, but in debt capital (loans) also

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(4), Chennai vs. Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1959/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Ltu 2, Mumbai

ITA 1677/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of India, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

ITA 1676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. C Naresh

Section 144B

Further, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed amounting to Rs. 1937,62,60,435/ 1937,62,60,435/- as deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. As as deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. As per their computation the assessee ... Branches and claimed it as Rural branch eligible were shown against few Branches and claimed it as Rural branch eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. The categories of Branches The categories of Branches

Guljeet Singh Saroya, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 1 (4), Gurugram

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 37Section 43B

grossly erred on facts and in law in misreading the provisions o f Section 36(1) (va) r.w. Section 2(24) (x) r.w. Section 43B r.w. various legal decisions, as applicable for A Y 2020-21 and upholding the disallowance o f Rs. 7,21,423/- on account ... supra). In regard to the issue raised, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering the legislative history of Section 36(1) (va) and 43B of the Act, the amendments brought in over the years and the various interpretations adopted by different courts

Lodha Hospital and Research Center, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove with no orders as to costs

ITA 86/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ao That There Is Mistake In The Schedule Of Pf & Esi In The Audit Report By Putting The Higher Figure Without Considering The Reply Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,12,460/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(va) by finding that there is inconsistency in the amount of ESI and PF details in the return and audit report which ... attention of the Bench towards the tax audit report at Item No. 20(b) which contains the details of contribution as referred in Section 36(1)(va) and the same are reproduced as under:- 4 LODHA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE VS ITO, WRD 6(2), JAIPUR Nature of Sum received from

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessee firm was of the view that for allowability of interest expenses is to be seen with reference to the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii). Proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) requires interest expenses to be capitalized only when incurred for acquisition of an “asset” and not “stock ... land, on which project had to be developed. 2.8 Hon’ble ITAT accepted the legal position that interest expenditure was otherwise allowable under section 36(1)(iii) having been incurred for the purpose of business, however it was of the view that the treatment has also to be in consonance

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3671/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

made a disallowance on account of delay in deposit of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The necessary facts on that account being that during the course of proceedings, the AO perused Form 3CD filed ... Appellant to show cause as to why late deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund ('PF') should not be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In response to the above, the Assessee vide submission dated 12 December 2018 submitted that in respect of certain months

ACIT, 16(1), New Delhi vs. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3616/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

D S Doors (India) Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 852/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshd. S. Doors (India) Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. Saubhagya Agarwal, Ward-1(2), K-185/14, Surya Plaza, 1St Faridabad Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd5805B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

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

land purchased by the assessee is under progress as on 31.3.2013. Hence the revenue is justified in applying the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act for the purpose of disallowing the interest of Rs 4,61,262/-. This

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. Partap Industries Limited, Rajpura

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

case, the CIT(A) has fallen into error while not noticing that Finance Act. 2021 also inserted a second Explanation to section 36(1 )(va) wherein it was clarified that provisions of section 43B shall be deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date ... under section 36(1)(va). 3. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition made by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act so made by the CPC towards

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregoan East vs. Ward 6(3)(2), Aayakrbhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 80/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.79 & 80/Mum/2024 Indaco Jeans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-6(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

Indaco Jeans Private Limited, Goregaon East vs. I.T.O 6(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 79/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.79 & 80/Mum/2024 Indaco Jeans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-6(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 724/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

appellant and in accordance with Accounting Standard 11 issued by the ICAI and was therefore allowable as a deduction. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act Rs.99,25,79,867/- 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the basis of computation of deduction under section 36 ... appellant. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) further erred in excluding the following amounts in computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viii): (i) Income from housing finance for residential purpose for a period of less than 5 years. (ii) Income from housing finance for non-residential purpose

The Dy CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 337/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

appellant and in accordance with Accounting Standard 11 issued by the ICAI and was therefore allowable as a deduction. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act Rs.99,25,79,867/- 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the basis of computation of deduction under section 36 ... appellant. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) further erred in excluding the following amounts in computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viii): (i) (ii) (iii) Income from housing finance for residential purpose for a period of less than 5 years. Income from housing finance for non-residential

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

appellant and in accordance with Accounting Standard 11 issued by the ICAI and was therefore allowable as a deduction. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act Rs.99,25,79,867/- 2.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the basis of computation of deduction under section 36 ... appellant. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) further erred in excluding the following amounts in computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viii): (i) (ii) (iii) Income from housing finance for residential purpose for a period of less than 5 years. Income from housing finance for non-residential