← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)513 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(iv) is Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd. (269 ITR 285), cited in 176 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iv)

Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT v. GTN Textiles Ltd.
269 ITR 285 · 2004 · High Court
176
citing judgments

Employee contributions towards ESI and PF are allowable as a deduction if paid by the due date for filing the income tax return, even if paid after the statutory due dates prescribed under the respective ESI/PF Acts.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
363 ITR 307 · 2014 · High Court
115
citing judgments

Employees' contribution to provident fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) deposited by the employer on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1) cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT
308 ITR 417 · 2009 · High Court
74
citing judgments

The write-back or waiver of a loan obtained for business purposes constitutes taxable business income under Section 28. This applies even if no prior deduction was claimed, thereby not attracting Section 41(1).

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

KeshrichandJaisukhlal v. CIT
199 ITR 702 · 1993 · High Court
62
citing judgments

Notional income, such as notional interest on interest-free loans, cannot be brought to tax without a specific statutory provision in the Income Tax Act. Only real income that has accrued or been received by the assessee is subject to income tax.

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT
238 ITR 939 · 1999 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(iv)

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained ... condition for allowing the expenditure. 53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained ... 799/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 10 53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained ... 799/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 10 53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 795/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained ... condition for allowing the expenditure. 53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its Page 5 of 7 liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus

Sara Trans Industries, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1550/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shiv P. SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

aforesaid decision, are as under: “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Bangalore Dor Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 826/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavankumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained ... condition for allowing the expenditure. 53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms

Span Intermediates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed subject to submission of certified documents mentioned above

ITA 1917/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalspan Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Mustafa Building, Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta Road, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcs6103Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(iv)Section 438Section 43B

made by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") holding the same to be in excess of the limits prescribed under section 36(1)(iv) of the IT Act read with Rule 87 of the IT Rules. He ought not to have confirmed the disallowance 2. Ground No. 2: Without prejudice ... recognised provident fund against the salaries and wages payments of Rs. 71,58,807/- claimed during the year. While as per the section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rules 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, any contribution above 27% of the total salary

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

ignoring the provision of section 40A(9) of the Act which provide for deduction only for payment to approved/recognized funds as referred to section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 30. While deciding the aforesaid question of law in favour of the assessee, Hon’ble jurisdictional ... Agarwal has sought to raise it now, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel tried to submit that on application of Section 40A (7) and Section 36 (1) (iv) of the said Act, these provisions being one for benefit of employees on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

consider whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction made by way of a contribution to an approved provident fund under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court held that It was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition granted by the Commissioner

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

consider whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction made by way of a contribution to an approved provident fund under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court held that It was not open to the taxing authorities to question the recognition granted by the Commissioner

ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified herei...

ITA 631/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Circle – 20(1) Ho-Accounts & Audit New Delhi Department, 1St Floor, 21-Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan : Aaacp 1206 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iv)

made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of contribution to P&S Bank employees Pension Fund Trust under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 87 & 88 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962? 3. Whether on the facts and circu mstances ... made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of contribution to P&S Bank employees Pension Fund Trust under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 87 & 88 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 978/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)

welfare of such employees ;” 7 ITA No.978/Del./2018 5.5 Deduction for payment of Employees’ Contribution to the ESI/PF is governed by section 36(1)(iv) of the Act which reads as under: “36(1) the deduction provided for in following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt ... will be still deprived of the interest if the contribution is paid after the due date of deposit. In view of provision of section 36(1)(iv) Act, the employer is discouraged to make deposit of employees contribution to ESI/EPF after the due date prescribed in respective enactment. Thus, respectfully