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

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

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii)

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

For a bad debt claim 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 books of accounts; proof that the debt has actually become irrecoverable is not required after the amendment to the section.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

The application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not mandatory for disallowing expenditure incurred to earn exempt income under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer must first record objective satisfaction explaining why the assessee's own computation of such disallowance is incorrect before applying Rule 8D.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
497
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
384
citing judgments

The amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts is reduced from loans for tax purposes.

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

Provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as a deduction when following the mercantile system of accounting, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
336
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).

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.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT
12 SCC 717 · 2005 · Supreme Court
285
citing judgments

A cardinal principle of tax law is that the law in force for the relevant assessment year applies unless expressly or necessarily provided otherwise. A retrospective tax provision stated to be 'for the removal of doubts' is not presumed retrospective if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
285
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.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………...……………..……….……….……….……Appellant Vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited......……...…..…..Respondent 23, A N Thakur Sarani, Circus Avenue, Kol - 700017.. [Pan: Aaacw3043Q] Appearances By: Shri B R Dutta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Ita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 139 & 159 Days Respectively & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

Showing 120 of 323 · Page 1 of 17

...