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)

Siti Cable Network Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6961/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Siti Cable Network Ltd. Acit, Range -11(1) (Partly Mrged With Dish Tv India Ltd.) Room No. 439, 4Th Floor 135,Continental Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan – Aaaca5478M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Dated 15.09.2014 & It Relates To A.Y. 2005-05. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Cable Network Services (Called Multi System Operator) To Cable Operators, Subscribers, Franchisee & Affiliates, Etc. The Original Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 31.10.2004 Showing Loss Of `83,73,94,340/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide Order Dated 22.12.2006 Assessing The Total Income At `249,53,53,900/- By Adding Subscription Income Of `356,32,58,864/- & Disallowing Write Off Of Loan & Advances Of `5,09,64,244/- & Write Of Off Inventories Of Band Width Charges Of `2,23,59,985/-. The Learned Cit(A), Vide Order Dated 23.03.2007 & His Order Under Section 154 Dated 15.06.2007 Deleted The Addition Of Subscription Income & Inventories

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(vi)