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

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

Section 36(1)(viia) 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)(viia) is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (347 ITR 272), cited in 516 of the 877 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia)

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.

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala
391 ITR 218 · 2017 · High Court
228
citing judgments

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(viia)

The Shevapet Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT Circle 1, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 851/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.851/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Shevapet Urban Cooperative The Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Limited, 52, Karunalayaa, Ram Vs. Income Tax, Circle – 1, Nagar, Kumarasamipatti, Salem – 636 007. Salem – 636 007. [Pan:Aaaat 7930 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem Dated 31.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.4,31,636/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur vs. M/S. the Kolhapur District Co-Op Agriculture Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. The Kolhapur District Co-Op. Agriculture Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd., E, 204, Kh, Vikas Bhavan, Near St. Stand, Tarabai Park Kolhapur- 416002. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaaat5886G Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Kolhapur (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 In Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.64,81,150/-, Where The Assessee Has Accepted All The Addition Made By The Ao On Which The Penalty Is Levied. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.64,81,150/-, Where The Assessee Has Filled Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Not Filed Appeal On The All Additions. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer’S Order May Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37Section 43B