Section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.29, 30, 31, 32

Section 36(1)(v) falls under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 29 (Deductions related to employee welfare), section 30 (Deduction on certain premium), section 31 (Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt) and section 32 (Other deductions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 29 of the 2025 ActRead section 30 of the 2025 ActRead section 31 of the 2025 ActRead section 32 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(v) is CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. (216 Taxmann 327), cited in 29 of the 124 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(v)

CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd.
216 Taxmann 327 · 2013 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

Payments made by an employer directly to the LIC towards an employees' group gratuity fund are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided the employer has no control over these funds.

385 ITR 592 (Kar. H.C.) 13. CIT v. VMD Mills P. Ltd.
434 ITR 671 · 2021 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Assam Tea House v. CIT
25 Taxmann.com 93 · 2012 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Pr. CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 134 · 2018 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 36(1)(v)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S Madhyanchal Gramin Bank Poddar Colony, Sagar

ITA 137/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

M/S. Balasore Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 40Section 43B

M/S Mrinalini Biri Manufacturing Co., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 957/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 674/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

Coventya India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 975/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

Coventya India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 974/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

M/S. Maass Flange India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1382/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 2(5)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 739/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.130, Gidc, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Vapi, Ahmedabad. Gujarart.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 43B

The Bundi Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Private Eye Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 470/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Private Eye Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.30/9, 80 Feet Road, Circle – 5(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Indiranagar, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 038. 80 Feet Road, Pan : Aaccp 3314 K Bangalore – 560 095. Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Ador Fontech Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2983/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita No.2983(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S Ador Fontech Ltd. Bel View, 7, Haudin Road, Bangalore-560 042 Panno.Aabca1724H Appellant Vs The Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)

Valsad District Co.Op .Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Dy.CIT, Valsad Range, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 827/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

Valsad District Co.Op .Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Dy.CIT, Valsad Range, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 826/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

Valsad District Co.Op .Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Dy.CIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 842/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin vs. M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi

ITA/69/2010HC Kerala13 Mar 2019

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised As Per Annexure-B Order, Whereby Some

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 37Section 40A(9)Section 43A

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd

ITA/60/2010HC Kerala13 Mar 2019
For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHINFor Respondent: M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LTD
Section 143Section 40A(9)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin vs. M/S. Appollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi

ITA/47/2010HC Kerala13 Mar 2019

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised As Per Annexure-B Order, Whereby Some Points Were Answered In Favour Of The Assessee, While Some Additions Were Made In Favour

For Appellant: M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD., KOCHIFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 37Section 40A(9)