← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)285 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(viii) is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (347 ITR 272), cited in 516 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viii)

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
326
citing judgments

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

CIT v. Essar Tele
401 ITR 445 · 2018 · Supreme Court
198
citing judgments

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, read with Section 14A, applies prospectively. It cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.

Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT
230 ITR 733 · 1998 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, for failure to deduct tax at source, is not an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.

UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B
4 SCC 599 · 1999 · Reported
122
citing judgments

Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act have the force of law and are binding on all income tax authorities. These circulars can mitigate the rigour of statutory provisions, provide administrative relief, and ensure uniform application of the Act for the benefit of the assessee.

Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT
394 ITR 592 · 2017 · Supreme Court
107
citing judgments

The object clause in a partnership deed is not determinative of the head under which rental income is to be assessed; income from letting out shops and stalls developed by the assessee may still be classified as 'Income from House Property' rather than 'Profits and Gains of Business'.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai
234 CTR 1 · 2010 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income not forming part of the total income is not deductible under Section 14A(1). The disallowance must be restricted to direct and indirect expenses having an approximate connection with the earning of such exempt income, and Rule 8D applies from Assessment Year 2008-09.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viii)

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

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री संदीप धसंह करहैल

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

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

ITA 1499/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

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

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

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

ITA 1498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1497/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

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

ITA 1496/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

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

ITA 1495/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees ... delete the disallowances made towards provision for leave fare concession, resettlement expenses and silver jubilee awards. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees ... delete the disallowances made towards provision for leave fare concession, resettlement expenses and silver jubilee awards. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. NFAC, CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

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

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97
For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

company" as defined in Section 2 (5A) (iv) read with Section 2 (5B) (iii) of the Act; and (f) it enjoys exemption under section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide letter F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, as is available ... connection there with.” (emphasis added) 6.1 BECAUSE the mere fact that the appellant corporation has been held to be eligible for relief under section 36 (1) (viii) of the IT Act, 1961, by virtue of Notification No. F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, will not ipso

M/S U.P State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

company" as defined in Section 2 (5A) (iv) read with Section 2 (5B) (iii) of the Act; and (f) it enjoys exemption under section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide letter F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, as is available ... connection there with.” (emphasis added) 6.1 BECAUSE the mere fact that the appellant corporation has been held to be eligible for relief under section 36 (1) (viii) of the IT Act, 1961, by virtue of Notification No. F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, will not ipso

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bank Of Baroda Acit-2(1)(1) Baroda Corporate Centre Room 561, 5Th Floor Corporate Accounts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 2Nd M.K. Road Floor, C-26, G-Block Churchgate Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Bandra-E, Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aaacb1534F Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh & Shri
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)

assessment order without conducting enquiries or verification which should have been done. Since the Ld. AO did not examine the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and correctness of the deduction claimed by the appellant, the Ld. PCIT placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance ... assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance ... assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance ... assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits