← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Ankleshwar

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1035/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Asstt.Commissioner Of Gujarat Insecticides Limited Income Tax Vs Plot No.805/806, Gidc Estate Circle-2(1)(1) Ankleshwar Vadodara Bharuch – 393 002 Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) … "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 19/10/2023, Arising Out Of An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Facts Of The Case: The Acit Vs. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 31Section 32(1)(ia)

reply of assessee is reproduced for the sake of clarity: “In this regard, it is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 36(1) (iii), interest on money borrowed for business purpose is an allowable deduction on fulfillment of the following conditions: - • The money must have been borrowed ... charges is not justified. The assessee has demonstrated that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes, and the conditions laid out in Section 36(1)(iii) were met. The outstanding amounts with GCL and other customers were part of normal business transactions, with no interest charged in alignment with

DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana vs. M/S Cosmas Research Lab Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 636/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 636/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Cosmos Research Lab बनाम Cc-Iii, Ltd., 56-C, Ludhiana Udham Singh Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcc4782B ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajit Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 36Section 68

percent per annum on capital work in progress including capital advances amounting to Rs.52,71,57,595/- under the provisions of section 36 (1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds ... annum on capital work in progress and capital advances amounting to Rs. 52,71,57,595/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 8. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has given his findings on this issue as under

M/S. Gunny Dealers Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Tech-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1373/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. I.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Gunny Dealers Ltd 12. Both the parties have submitted that

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(1) and relates to Assessment Year 2017-18. 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance under section 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.1,08,49,643/-. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in considering an erroneous "due date" for deciding ... EPFO extending the due date from January 15, 2017 to January 20, 2017 and further erred in failing to consider the Explanation below section 36(1)(va). 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also erred in not considering section 10 of the General Clauses Act. 6) The learned