← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viia)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)445 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia)

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.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

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.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viia)

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed. 25. Ground No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 26. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the assessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be computed before computing the deduction

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

raised in Revenue's appeal is allowed. 25. Ground No. 3, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains to the computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 26. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The AO, vide assessment ... order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, computed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act after allowing deduction under section 44C of the Act. As per the assessee, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act should be computed before computing the deduction

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(via)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer, Guna

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 348/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer, Guna

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 347/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, Rule 2ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after going through the remand report of the Ld. AO has given ... figures. The AO accepted the proposition in the assessment order that the claim is allowable if it stands the test of law. Section 36(1)(viia) stipulates the allowability of claim in the manner prescribed and the manner has been prescribed in rule 6ABA. The appellant has made the calculation

Truhome Finance Limited (Earlier Known As Shriram Housing Finance Limited), Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3(1) Chennai, Chennai

ITA 781/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr. S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

made by the assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia) (c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation ... before the ld. Assessing Officer on the specific query is extracted below: 5. This issue pertains to deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the said issue is squarely covered in favour

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata

ITA 748/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeydcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata..

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………...……………..……….……….……….……Appellant Vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited......……...…..…..Respondent 23, A N Thakur Sarani, Circus Avenue, Kol - 700017.. [Pan: Aaacw3043Q] Appearances By: Shri B R Dutta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Ita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 139 & 159 Days Respectively & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

ITA 4913/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Kumar Meena, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the cross objections

ITA 4869/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Kumar Meena, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other?" 4. Since the issue raised by the revenue

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other?" 4. Since the issue raised by the revenue

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, Cr Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other?" 4. Since the issue raised by the revenue

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, ITO C.R. Building vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other?" 4. Since the issue raised by the revenue

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other?" 4. Since the issue raised by the revenue

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

erred in granting relief to the assessee on the issue of the disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is independent on each other ?” Since the issue raised by the revenue and assessee

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur vs. D, C, I.T., Circle - 2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 975/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

justified by upholding the deletion of Panjipara Branch of the appellant from the list of Rural branches while calculating the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred ... list of Rural branches while calculating average outstanding of advances of rural branches to determine the maximum amount of deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly erred

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Jalpaiguri

ITA 974/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

justified by upholding the deletion of Panjipara Branch of the appellant from the list of Rural branches while calculating the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred ... list of Rural branches while calculating average outstanding of advances of rural branches to determine the maximum amount of deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly erred