← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viia)(d)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)(d)14 judgments

TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 3(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 781/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

disallowance u/s.\n36(1)(vii) were rejected, and it was held as under:\n“10.5 The conjoint reading of provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(d), 36(1)(vii) and 36(2)\nwith Memorandum clearly explains that the provisions for bad debt is to be created and\ncredited ... provision account to the extent of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia)(d) to avail\nthe benefit of the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(d). Further, the amount ofdeduction\navailable is restricted by the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2).Due to this\nrestriction the amount

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

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

deduction under\nsection 36(1)(vii).\n6.4\nInapplicability of Section 36(1)(vila)(d): The Assessee has not claimed\nthe benefit under section 36(1)(viia)(d), nor is it eligible, as it was inserted via\nthe Finance Act, 2016 and became operative from 01.04.2017. Hence, the\ngeneral provision under

SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-

ITA 2043/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2043/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shriram Finance Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of [Since Shriram City Union Finance Income Tax – 3, Limited Amalgamated With Shriram Chennai. Transport Finance Co. Limited & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Limited], Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4

relevant to the AY 2021-22, an amount of ₹.99,78,811/- was claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act relating to provision created during the year for bad debts. Since for F.Y. 2021-22, the amount of ₹.99,78,811/- was available as opening

M/S PINNACLE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 5, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI-834004

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Pinnacle Capital Solutions (P) Ltd., P.C.I.T., Virdi Niwas, Jamshedpur, East Ranchi. Vs. Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. Pan No. Aaacp 9726 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

merit of the case, it is submitted that the captioned assessee during the period under consideration has not claim any expense under section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the act as mentioned by your goodself in the impugned notice. Your goodself may kindly note that captioned assessee has debited

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

underline] \n\n29. 7. In view of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2016 and RBI \nclarification, new section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act becoming applicable to \nthe Housing Finance Company, assessee gets the eligibility for claiming \ndeduction under the said amended section. Assessee having regards ... nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\nthe bad debts written off against section 36(1)(viia)(d) account. While \ngiving the said direction, ld. CIT(A) arrived at a view that bad debts \nwritten off during Assessment Year 2018-19 should

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 515/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

above the original provision created should not be disallowed. The assessee made a simpliciter claim that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction for provision of bad and doubtful debts to the extent ... assessee for the reason that the assessee has originally debited only a sum of Rs.49.45 crores but the provision of section 36(1)(viia)(d) ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 of the Act stipulates that only an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income is allowable as deduction

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 514/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

above the original provision created should not be disallowed. The assessee made a simpliciter claim that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction for provision of bad and doubtful debts to the extent ... assessee for the reason that the assessee has originally debited only a sum of Rs.49.45 crores but the provision of section 36(1)(viia)(d) ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 of the Act stipulates that only an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income is allowable as deduction

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT &FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,PARRYS, CHENNAI vs. ACIT- CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

above the original provision created should not be disallowed. The assessee made a simpliciter claim that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction for provision of bad and doubtful debts to the extent ... assessee for the reason that the assessee has originally debited only a sum of Rs.49.45 crores but the provision of section 36(1)(viia)(d) ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 of the Act stipulates that only an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income is allowable as deduction

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT-1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

above the original provision created should not be disallowed. The assessee made a simpliciter claim that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction for provision of bad and doubtful debts to the extent ... assessee for the reason that the assessee has originally debited only a sum of Rs.49.45 crores but the provision of section 36(1)(viia)(d) ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 of the Act stipulates that only an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income is allowable as deduction

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 68

ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said addition. 4.1 Before us, the ld.AR filed additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that Finance Act, 2016 has introduced section 36(1)(viia)(d) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. As per said provision, NBFC’s 6 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A] are allowed to make provision for bad and doubtful ... perusal of the assessment order and ld.CIT(A)’s order, it is observed that both these authorities have not considered the section 36(1)(viia)(d) introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The relevant part of the Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2016 is reproduced here as under : “Considering the fact that

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

business and profession during the relevant assessment year. Having done so, the Appellant duly claimed a deduction of Rs. 39.58 crores under Section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act being provision for bad and doubtful debts created for the year AY 2017-18. Thereafter, during the assessment proceedings conducted ... Deduction for Provision for Bad and Doubtful assets as per sec. 36(1) (viia)(d): Rs. 39,58,47,267 As per section 36(1) (viia)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the deduction is allowable to a non-banking financial company, an amount not exceeding five per cent

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

initially the benefit of deduction of provision for bad and doubtful was extended only to scheduled banks. However with effect from A.Y.2017-18 section 36(1)(viia)(d) provides that “deduction shall be allowed to Page 5 of 9 a non banking financial companies of an amount not exceeding ... total income”. Section 36(1) (viia) (d) provides that deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by Non-Banking Financial Company can be allowed to an extent of an amount not exceeding 5% of the total amount computed before making any deduction under this clause