← 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)

Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 855/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1126/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Ms. Arti Shah, ARFor Respondent: (sl.nos.1&4) Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

under: “Upon perusal of computation of income, it is seen that the assessee has claimed a deduction of 7,50,00,000/- under section 36(1)(viii). As per Explanation (g) of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, "infrastructure facility" means - (ii) an undertaking referred ... also requested to furnish the details of computation of profit derived from the eligible business in A.Y 2016-17- As per section 36(1)(viii), any other financial corporation (refer Explanation 1 (a)) shall be allowed a deduction, of an amount not exceeding 20% of the profits derived from eligible

Hudco Ltd. (Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 7218/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hudco Ltd. (Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6829/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2063/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3704/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3305/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata, vide order dated 22.12.2017. In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer made substantive additions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act (Rs. 30,80,96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit ... issue are dismissed. 4. Regarding the assessee’s appeal (ITA No. 428/Kol/2018), the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was covered in the assessee’s favour due to decision rendered by Coordinate Benches in assessee’s own case

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata, vide order dated 22.12.2017. In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer made substantive additions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act (Rs. 30,80,96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit ... issue are dismissed. 4. Regarding the assessee’s appeal (ITA No. 428/Kol/2018), the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was covered in the assessee’s favour due to decision rendered by Coordinate Benches in assessee’s own case

DCIT, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

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

ITA 2948/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 251,69,68,788/ under section 36(1)(viii) to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee had not provided the details of exact profit derived from eligible business. 9. The appellant craves ... 2948/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank therefore, the bank is entitled for the deduction under section 36(1) (viii) of the Income Tax Act. 34. The ld AR submitted that the assessee bank had during the year transferred a sum of Rs.251.70 crore to Revenue

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amreli vs. The DCIT-ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

operative bank from claiming deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia)” ii. [2009] 180 Taxman 55 (AAR – New Delhi)/[2009] 312 ITR 122 “1. Section 36(1) (viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Financial corporation, reserve created by -Assessment year 1997-98 - Whether amendment to section 36(1)(viii) by Finance ... from 1-4-1998 for availing benefit under section 36(1)(viii), is not retrospective in operation and it shall - Held, yess Whether under pre-amended provision requirement for claiming deduction was creation of special reserve and restriction against withdrawal of special reserve cannot be read into main clause (viii

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 742/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs.5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed the deduction ... 1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 740/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs. 5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed ... held now. 2.1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 739/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs.5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed the deduction ... 1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 738/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs. 5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed ... held now. 2.1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 737/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs.5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed the deduction ... 1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 736/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs. 5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed ... held now. 2.1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 735/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the appellant's claim of Rs. 5,19,29,489/- for deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that appellant has satisfied necessary conditions and NFAC ought to have allowed ... held now. 2.1. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that in absence of share capital, no deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act can be allowed to the appellant. It is submitted that proviso to section 36(1) (viii) of the Act limits