Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act

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

Section 36(2) 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(2) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 of the 618 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 36(2)

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.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.
46 ITR 649 · 1962 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

When advances extended in the normal course of business operations become irrecoverable and are written off, these amounts are allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.
330 ITR 62 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd.
58 ITR 241 · 1965 · Reported
69
citing judgments

The test of enduring benefit for classifying expenditure as capital or revenue is not absolute; expenditure incurred for an enduring advantage may nonetheless be on revenue account, as the test can break down depending on the facts.

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT
348 ITR 109 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Unrecoverable trade advances, including loans to joint venture partners or advances against land, are allowable as a business loss incidental to trade under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act when written off in the books of accounts. Such losses are treated akin to bad debts eligible for deduction.

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT
111 ITR 263 · 1978 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

A business loss is deductible if it has a direct and proximate nexus with business operations or is incidental to them, applying a commercial standard, even without an explicit statutory provision for its deduction.

CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia
342 ITR 285 · 2012 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For a share broker, the unrealised value of shares from clients or other trade balances written off is deductible as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) if the corresponding income was previously recognized. This principle applies to bad debts arising from revenue transactions, not capital loans.

CIT v. Anil Kumar
392 ITR 552 · 2017 · High Court
40
citing judgments

When there is nothing on record to establish the financial capacity, creditworthiness, or relationship of a donor with the assessee, an addition to income can be justified.

Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT
70 ITD 62 · 1999 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Disallowance of expenses cannot be made if their genuineness is not challenged. For unexplained money, possession of gold jewellery by married ladies up to 500 grams is considered explained.

Judgments on Section 36(2)

Baijnath Maniram, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7584/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7584/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Baijnath Maniram Holding & Finance Addl. Cit, Range-14(3), बनाम/ Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 51-53, Mittal Court, A Wing, Vs. Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefb 8365 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 25.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.10.2011, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 16.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Raises The Following Grounds, Which We Shall Take Up In Seriatim:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)