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)

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6586/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6586 & 6587/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), M/S. The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Abhilasha Shramik Co-Op. Housing बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Society Ltd. Vs. Ground Floor, Kingstone Tower, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai-400 033 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat 0034 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेपक सं./C.O. Nos. 108 & 109/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 6586/Mum/2016 & 6587/Mum/2016) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Limited Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Abhilasha Shramik Co-Op. Housing बनाम/ Society Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ground Floor, Kingstone Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai-400 033 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat 0034 A (Cross Objector) : (Revenue) : Shri V. Justin Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Basant Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Basant Jain
Section 36

Vasai Vikas Shakari Bank Ltd, Vasai vs. DCIT Cir 4, Thane

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6660/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6660/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vasai Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd. Acit, Circle-4, बनाम/ Samaj Mandir, Opp. New English High Thane School, Parnaka, Vasai (W)-401 201 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaav 0519 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 14.06.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Levying Penalty Of Rs.25,40,650/- In Respect Of The Claim Of Deduction U/S. 36(1)(Viia), Which Is Neither Concealment Of Income Nor Is Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)