← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)853 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(vii) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii)

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

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.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(vii)

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad (supra), had set aside the view expressed by the CIT(A) that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against the provisions allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. The relevant ... double deduction. In our view, both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have committed fundamental error by mixing up provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). While 36(1)(vii) speaks of actual write off of bad debts in the books of account, section 36(1

Instronics Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6643/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usinstronics Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (1), 806, Devika Tower – 6, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aaaci0163R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Order : 05.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-4, New Delhi Dated 24.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provision Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld Ao U/S 143(3) Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Wrong On Facts. The Addition Sustained Is Unjust, Unlawful & Arbitrary & Are Made Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Provisions Of Law, The Ld Cit Appeals Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Bad Debts Claimed Of Rs.53,11,956/- Ignoring The Fact That The Said Amount Is Irrecoverable & Eligible To Claim As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Vii) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Before ld. CIT (A), assessee pressed hard on the documents submitted on record and submitted that all the conditions of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) have been 4 fulfilled, hence the claim should be allowed. Considering the submissions

Ram Awadh Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Prcit, Central-2, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4130/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Awadh Sharma Vs. Pr. Cit D-153, Pinnacle Dlr, Phase- Central-2 5, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No.Bkbps6630N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. P.N. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

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

revisional authority concluded that the AO has not examined the issue of bad debts of Rs. 1 crore claimed without fulfilling conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36 (2) of the Act. It was concluded that assessee was not doing any business activity during the year under

ACIT, Chennai vs. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 47/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 9

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वकी, न्याययक

Samsung C and T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 22(2) Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2184/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

that it is a debatable issue. This itself would indicate that whether the claim of a provision for bad debts is deductible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

consideration. It is the say of the counsel that once the debts / advances / claims are written off as bad debts then deduction under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act ought to be allowed. The counsel stated that bad debts has arisen on account of sale

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

consideration. It is the say of the counsel that once the debts / advances / claims are written off as bad debts then deduction under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act ought to be allowed. The counsel stated that bad debts has arisen on account of sale

Associated Techno Plastic P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1890/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Associated Techno Plastic P.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Elegence Level-2, Mathura Road, Circle-2(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca2525K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

business loss. The bad debts written off can be allowed as deduction within the meaning of provisions as laid down in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the I.T. Act in case of assessee which pre-requisite the following two conditions: A It should be actually written

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision is not allowable under section 36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision is not allowable under section 36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision is not allowable under section 36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision is not allowable under section 36(1)(vii), write back of such provision cannot give rise to an income under section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore decline to interfere

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly

ITA 6130/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: the time of hearing."

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Neelkanth Co Operative Bank Limited, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Solapur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1380/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT

Jmj Ganpatiji Maharaja Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Asrani Inns and Resorts Pvt Ltd), Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 3011/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
Section 36(1)(vii)

claimed as written off in the profit and loss account. Further the assessee could not establish the claim as per the provisions under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in the current financial year and the amount

G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 317. 3Rd Floor, Rectangle Circle-10(2), One, D-4, Saket District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaecg5244P Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Mr. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Shri Mufiz Burhamuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER