← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vi)45 judgments

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

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nand\nSHRI

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nand\nSHRI

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

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nand\nSHRI

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nand\nSHRI

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI.\nBEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nand\nSHRI

ACIT,CIRCLE-10(1) , NEW DELHI vs. INDEX SECURITIES & RESEARCH PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2181/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

debts\nwritten off without appreciating that the loan which is not granted during regular\ncourse of business.\n6.1\nFailure to Satisfy Conditions Under Section 36(1)(vi): The deduction of\nbad debts is governed by section 36(1)(vii), which mandates that for such claim\nto be allowable:\n•\nThe

RAVI YANTRIKI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD (5)(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 133(6)Section 194C

nSupreme Court in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), we hold that the assessee is\nentitled to claim the aforesaid deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act.\nAccordingly, we hold so and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the\naddition of 59.81,991/-. The ground of appeal raised

DCIT-15.1.2, MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. ISPAT INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd., Office No.470 Central Facility Building, ……………… Respondent Phase – Ii, Sector 19 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan : Aabci0639P Assessee By : Shri Hemant Vora Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hemant VoraFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

interest of justice and fair play to submit all the details/documents in support of the claim of allowance of bad debts under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording the assessee a due opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the impugned

K PARAMASIVAN & SONS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. CIRCLR-19(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1727/CHNY/2025[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1727/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri K. Paramasivan & Sons, The Deputy Commissioner 89, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Guindy, Non-Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. Pan: Aakfk 7053P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

were offered in the Profit and loss account as indirect income in the year 2011-12 and also stated that as per section 36(1)(vi), to allow as a bad debt, the amount should be written off in the books of accounts, since the assessee has written

THE SINGHBHUM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.177/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Singhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank, Chaibasa...……….……Appellant Represented By Jsbs, Madhubazar, Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aaajt2036K] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi……….............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Sr. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.06.2023 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’).

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 292BSection 36(1)(vi)Section 80P

made provision of Rs.11,46,24,925/- for bad & doubtful debts against non-performing assets in P & L A/c. As per provision of section 36(1)(vi) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of Rs.9,61,28,062/- , the assessee claimed Rs.11

PRAGYA SAVITA,JABALPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1) ,JABALPUR , JABALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur Pan:Axyps7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.10.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Dated 17.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Nafc Was Wrong In Law For Not Allowing The Deduction For Payment Of Rs. 56,39,017/- Under Section 36(1)(Vi) On Account Of Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic Amount. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic On Or Before Due Date For Furnishing Return Of Income Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 139 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Employer Is Entitled For Deduction. 2. That The Both Employee Contribution Epf Rs.49,38,777/- & Esic Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-Which Has Been Deposited With A Small Delay Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Covid-19. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Before Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(vi)

That the learned CIT (A) NAFC was wrong in law for not allowing the deduction for payment of Rs. 56,39,017/- under section 36(1)(vi) on account of employee contribution of EPF and ESIC amount. Whereas the assessee had deposited the employee contribution of EPF & ESIC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

covered it in debts, other than those for which the provision is\nmade under clause (viia), winder covered under the main part of section 36(1)(vi),\nwhile the proviso will operate in cases witten clause (viia) to limit deduction to the\nextent of difference between the debt or part ... previous year\nand credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under\nclause (viia). The proviso to section 36(1)(vi) will relate to cases covered under section\n36(1)(viia) and has to be read with section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

covered it in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), winder covered under the main part of section 36(1)(vi), ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 22 while the proviso will operate in cases witten clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between ... previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia). The proviso to section 36(1)(vi) will relate to cases covered under section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

permissible under the provisions of the Act. Further, Tribunal held that assessee had also not written off the NPAs as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, there was no question of writing off such interest as a bad debt. 9. In the hearing today

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE- ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

permissible under the provisions of the Act. Further, Tribunal held that assessee had also not written off the NPAs as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, there was no question of writing off such interest as a bad debt. 9. In the hearing today

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

permissible under the provisions of the Act. Further, Tribunal held that assessee had also not written off the NPAs as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, there was no question of writing off such interest as a bad debt. 9. In the hearing today

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

permissible under the provisions of the Act. Further, Tribunal held that assessee had also not written off the NPAs as bad debts under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, there was no question of writing off such interest as a bad debt. 9. In the hearing today

STEEL CITY BEVERAGES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3133/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Steel City Beverages Vs Ito Limited, C/O Advocate Ward- 24 (1) Kanika Jain D-80, Lgf New Delhi Panchsheel New Delhi - 1110017 Pan No.Aaccs3967M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 40ASection 47A(7)

written submissions are few such decisions. 4.7 In order to settle the dispute, the Finance Act, 2021 made certain amendments to Section 36(1)(vi) and in Section 43B of the Income Tax Act which is as under- "In section 36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring ... 1TAT has stated that the interest or debenture is eligible for deduction subject to satisfaction of conditions under Explanation h to section 36(1) (vi) (refer para 28 on page 33 of Annexure 4. Thus, as all the conditions are satisfied, interest on debentures should be included to arrive

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3