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)

Jeypore Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Koraput vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jeypore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Jeypore Cooperative Urban Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward- Bank Ltd., 1, Jeypore M.G.Road, Jeypore, Koraput- 764001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaajj 0215 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0118/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of 55 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating The Reasons For Delay. Ld.Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Considering The Application Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay Of 55 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard On Merits. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Case Was Called For Hearing, However, An Adjournment Petition Has Been Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Seeking Adjournment On The Ground That He Could

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 1Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43Section 43B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 212/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 16Section 40

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 16Section 40