← 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)

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 10(1), Delhi

ITA 2572/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 10(1), Delhi

ITA 2571/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 10(1), Delhi

ITA 2570/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 10(1), Delhi

ITA 2569/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Delhi

ITA 2568/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 10(1), Delhi

ITA 2567/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.129,63,24,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.29,53,53,159/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits from long-term financing business. Ld. Counsel explained the said deduction was computed as under ... same being shown as business income by the assessee; (b) AO held that the assessee is not at all eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and consequently, denied the entire claim of deduction under that section. 6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Ipf Vikram India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

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

ITA 1204/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

that while the auditor had furnished specific details in Column No. 20(b) of the audit report regarding contributions received from employees under section 36(1)(va), the assessee failed to submit a complete list of all entries. Upon verification, the AO found that the dates on the submitted challans ... that the provision of Rs. 18,63,488/- for employee benefits was omitted from the taxable income and must be added back under section 36(1)(va). The total income was reassessed at Rs. 6,27,43,248/-, interest was charged under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, and penalty

T.P. Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd…....…………………....Appellant 53/B, 1St Floor, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaact9370R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata…..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.04.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 30.10.2017, Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 6,19,94,350/-. The Assessing Officer Found From The Tax Audit Report That The Assessee Has Paid Employees Contribution Of Rs.8,81,926/- Towards Pf & Towards Esi For Rs.1,12,067/- After The Due Date So The Delayed Deposit Of Pf Is Treated As Income Of Assessee As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Read With Section Of 2(24)(X) & A

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.1,12,067/- after the due date so the delayed deposit of PF is treated as income of assessee as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section of 2(24)(x), and a I.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025 T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd sum of Rs.9

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward No. One, Panipat Haryana, India

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

ITA 3656/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee's Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved is relating ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward One, Panipat, Haryana, India

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

ITA 3654/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee's Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved is relating ... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

allowance or deduction claimed by assessee in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred, however, assessee had not claimed deduction under section 36(1)(ii) for interest on loan and loan was obtained for acquiring capital assets, hence, waiver was on account of liability other than trading liability

Ms Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd., Surat vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1069/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

grievances. First, the assessee challenged the disallowance of interest amounting to %26,18,739/- made out of the interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii) read with section 37 of the Act. Second, the assessee objected to the adjustment of %93,25,310/- made by the Centralised Processing ... Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal relate to the disallowance of %26,18,739/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by way of proportionate disallowance of interest at the rate of 10% per annum. 4.1 We have heard the rival submissions

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

viia) after set-off of these b/f losses. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) referred to section 36(1)(viia) as extracted below: “….. (viia) in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by- (a) a scheduled bank not being ... bold] 23.2. In view of the above decision, ld. CIT(A) held that the total income for the purpose of section 36(1)(viia) will be determined after set-off of brought forwarded losses. Accordingly, he upheld the working of net AY 2013-14 profit after set-off of brought

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sunil Kumar, Alwar Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3, Rewari

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 7634/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

taxmann.com 1199 (Chattisgarh); has already 2 Sunil Kumar settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that the above section 36(1)(va) disallowance of ESI/PF is a highly debatable issue to be rejected in section 143(1) “processing”, reading as under: “Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - This ... delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under