Section 36(2)(i) — 53 judgments | BharatTax

IPHONLINE LIMITED (NOW AS ASAPP INFO GLOBAL SERVIES PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's Appeal is partly allowed, in the\nabove terms

ITA 5946/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

same time, the\nAssessee has also not been able to prove that it is not hit by the\nrestriction of the provision of section 36(2) of the Act. The Ld.\nCommissioner also observed that in view of the judgment by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... Catholic Syrien Bank Limited\nVs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the Assessee must prove all the\ningredients of section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2). Proper\ndocumentation and adherence to conditions are essential for\nclaiming Bad debt deduction. The Assessee neither before the\nAssessing Officer nor before

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

admitted fact that such principal amount had never been taken into account in computing taxable income of any earlier year, thereby violating Section 36(2)?\"\n4. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law, in holding that the condition ... Section 36(2) is satisfied merely because interest income on such loan was taxed in earlier years, overlooking the legislative intent that the \"debt OR part thereof\" must itself be in the nature of a trading/money-lending debt?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

accounts was out of the interest income, which was offered to tax in the earlier years and hence the condition laid down in Section 36(2) r.w. 36(1)(vii) of the Act was met. Though having observed so, the AO is noted to have subsequently held that the impugned ... assessee to establish that the debts become bad in the previous year under consideration for claiming the same as deduction. 8.9 As per section 36(2)(i) of the Act, in order to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the precondition is that the debt

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

accounts was out of the interest income, which was offered to tax in the earlier years and hence the condition laid down in Section 36(2) r.w. 36(1)(vii) of the Act was met. Though having observed so, the AO is noted to have subsequently held that the impugned ... assessee to establish that the debts become bad in the previous year under consideration for claiming the same as deduction. 8.9 As per section 36(2)(i) of the Act, in order to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the precondition is that the debt