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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) 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)(vii) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 of the 1,429 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 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.

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.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT Range 10, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s cross-appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 27/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.27/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Vs. Acit, Range-10, Kolkata Ltd Duncan House 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaco3006F (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.251/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd Duncan House 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaco3006F (Revenue/Department) .. ((Assessee) Appellant By : Shri U. H Rai, A/R Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 15, Kolkata Dated 16.11.2016 Passed In Case No.403/Cit(A)-15/15-16/R-10/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri U. H Rai, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36

ACIT, Central Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Oriental Carbon & Chemiclas Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s cross-appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 251/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.27/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Vs. Acit, Range-10, Kolkata Ltd Duncan House 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaco3006F (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.251/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd Duncan House 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaco3006F (Revenue/Department) .. ((Assessee) Appellant By : Shri U. H Rai, A/R Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 15, Kolkata Dated 16.11.2016 Passed In Case No.403/Cit(A)-15/15-16/R-10/R&T/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri U. H Rai, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36