Section 36 is the specific-deductions catalog for PGBP. It supplements the general s. 37 deduction by enumerating particular categories — insurance, employee contributions, interest, NPS contributions, gratuity funds, bad debts, NPA provisions, special reserves, STT/CTT. Each clause has its own conditions and timing rules.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively amended in every recent FA. Major reforms: (a) FA 2003 — proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) capitalising pre-use interest. (b) FA 2017 — s. 36(1)(viia) extended to NBFCs. (c) FA 2021 — Explanation 2 to s. 36(1)(va) codifying Checkmate Services position (employee PF deduction only on actual remittance to employee's account by due date). (d) FA 2024 — s. 36(1)(iva) NPS deduction cap raised from 10% to 14% of salary.
Operative consequences
• Insurance — business stock, cattle, employee health.
• Interest on borrowed capital (s. 36(1)(iii)) — deductible; pre-asset-use capital expenditure CAPITALISED to cost.
• Employee PF (s. 36(1)(va)) — strict due-date compliance per Checkmate Services / FA 2021 Explanation 2.
• NPS employer contribution (s. 36(1)(iva)) — up to 14% of salary post-FA 2024.
Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT — (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) — 3-Judge Bench
Holding. Foundational on s. 36(1)(va) employee PF contribution. Held — the due date for s. 36(1)(va) deduction is the due date under the RESPECTIVE Provident Fund / Employees' State Insurance Act / etc. — not the s. 139(1) return-of-income due date. Therefore, if the employer fails to remit the employee's contribution within the PF Act due date, the deduction is FOREVER LOST — it cannot be revived by remittance before the s. 139(1) date. Statutorily codified by FA 2021 inserting Explanation 2 to s. 36(1)(va). Overrules the pre-FA 2021 favourable HC line (Alom Extrusions, Sagun Foundry, etc.). Watershed authority that has tightened employer PF compliance.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 36 — Other deductions
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Lists specific allowances for computing PGBP: (i) insurance premium on stocks; (ia) cattle insurance; (ib) employee health-insurance premium; (ii) bonus/commission to employees; (iii) interest on borrowed capital used for business; (iiia) discount on Zero-Coupon Bond; (iv) employer's PF/super-annuation contribution to approved fund; (iva) employer's NPS contribution (cap raised to 14% by FA 2024 for non-Govt employers); (v) employer's gratuity-fund contribution; (va) employee's PF/ESI deposit by due date under the respective Act (Checkmate Services); (vi) animal-loss write-off; (vii) bad debts; (viia) provision for bad debts (banks/FIs); (ix) family-planning expenditure by companies; (xii) STT (since FA 2008); (xv) CTT (since FA 2013); (xvii) sugar-cooperative-society purchases above SAP; (xviii) MTM/expected losses computed under ICDS (FA 2018).
Section Commentary
Catalogue of specific deductions
Section 36(1) lists specific allowances that, by virtue of s. 29, must be allowed in computing PGBP if the assessee satisfies the prescribed conditions. The catalogue grows by accretion — STT (FA 2008), CTT (FA 2013), ICDS-driven MTM (FA 2018, sub-clause (xviii)), MSME-related provisions. Unlike s. 37 (residuary), s. 36(1) deductions are not contingent on a 'wholly and exclusively for business' filter — they have their own specific conditions.
The most-litigated clause. Allows interest on capital borrowed for the purposes of business / profession. Two key Supreme Court principles: (i) S.A. Builders — 'commercial expediency' permits interest deduction even where borrowed funds are advanced interest-free to subsidiaries / third parties, if a prudent businessman would so advance. (ii) Munjal Sales — rebuttable presumption that interest-free advances came from own / interest-free funds where assessee has sufficient pool. Pre-FA 2003 position (Core Health Care) allowed interest on borrowed capital for capital asset acquisition; FA 2003 inserted PROVISO requiring capitalisation up to date asset is 'first put to use'.
Employee PF / ESI — s. 36(1)(va) — Checkmate Services landmark
Employee's contribution to PF / ESI / other welfare fund deducted by employer is, in essence, TRUST MONEY held by the employer. Section 36(1)(va) requires it to be deposited by the due date prescribed under the respective welfare law. Checkmate Services (SC 2022) settled that this is a STRICT deadline — failure permanently loses the deduction. Section 43B does NOT rescue it (only employer's own contributions get the s. 43B safe-harbour up to s. 139(1) due date). FA 2021 inserted Expln 2 to s. 36(1)(va) and Expln 5 to s. 43B codifying the Checkmate position. This is now the single most important PGBP compliance trip-wire for payroll-heavy clients.
Post-FA 1989 (which removed 'established' from the section), the assessee only needs to WRITE OFF the debt as irrecoverable in the books — proof of actual irrecoverability is not required (TRF Ltd. (SC)). Vijaya Bank (SC) extends this to banks: reduction in advances account on balance sheet (provision-netting method) coupled with P&L debit qualifies as write-off, even without individual customer-ledger reduction. Pre-condition: the debt must have been taken into account in computing income of any earlier year (or represents money lent in ordinary banking course).
Employer's contribution to NPS (notified pension scheme u/s 80CCD(2)) is allowed up to 10% of salary; FA 2024 raised this cap to 14% for non-Government employers in the new tax regime. This aligns with the Government-employee cap and is a major compliance update for HR / payroll teams.
Discount on ZCBs issued by infrastructure / specified companies is allowed on a pro-rata basis over the life of the bond. Mechanics codified in Rule 8B.
STT / CTT — ss. 36(1)(xv) / (xvi)
Securities Transaction Tax (FA 2008) and Commodities Transaction Tax (FA 2013) — paid in respect of taxable transactions are allowable as business expenditure. For brokers / dealers, this is integral to their trading P&L.
Inserted by FA 2018 to permit deduction of MTM / expected losses computed in accordance with ICDS notified u/s 145(2). Brings ICDS-VIII (securities) and related standards into the deduction framework.
CA's check-list summary
(i) Employee PF / ESI — STRICT due-date trap (Checkmate). (ii) Interest on borrowings — capital-vs-revenue / pre-vs-post-put-to-use proviso. (iii) Bad debts — write-off in books sufficient post-1989. (iv) NPS cap monitoring at 14% under new regime. (v) STT / CTT pass-through. (vi) Form 3CD Cl. 20-21 captures these items.
FA 2026 impact: No fresh FA 2026 amendment. FA 2024 had raised employer NPS contribution cap u/s 36(1)(iva) from 10% to 14% for non-Government employers under the new tax regime. FA 2021 inserted Expln 2 to 36(1)(va) clarifying employee-PF strict due date.
Leading Decisions
1. Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Employee's contribution to PF / ESI deducted from wages — deposited by the employer beyond the due date prescribed under the PF/ESI Acts but BEFORE the due date for filing return u/s 139(1). Assessee claimed s. 43B safe-harbour. Revenue invoked s. 36(1)(va) read with Expln to disallow.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that EMPLOYEE'S contribution u/s 36(1)(va) is in the nature of TRUST MONEY held by the employer; if not deposited by the due date under the respective welfare law, the deduction is permanently LOST. Section 43B (which permits deferred payment up to s. 139(1) due date) applies only to EMPLOYER'S statutory dues; it does NOT rescue the employee contribution. The Court rejected the assessee's reliance on Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). FA 2021 had codified this position by Expln 2 to s. 36(1)(va) and Expln 5 to s. 43B (clarificatory and retrospective in operation according to Revenue's position; some HCs hold prospective).
Section relevance: Landmark — controls treatment of employee-PF/ESI under s. 36(1)(va). Crystallises the s. 36(1)(va) vs s. 43B distinction.
2. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (A)
Citation: (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Assessee borrowed on interest and advanced part of the funds interest-free to its subsidiary. Revenue disallowed proportionate interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the funds were not used 'for the purpose of business'.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is allowable where borrowed funds are advanced to a subsidiary or third party for 'commercial expediency'. The test is whether the assessee, as a prudent businessman, would have advanced the funds. The Court explicitly imported the 'commercial expediency' principle from the Madhav Prasad Jatia line.
Section relevance: Cardinal authority on s. 36(1)(iii) — commercial-expediency test for interest deductibility on borrowed funds diverted as interest-free advances.
3. Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT
Citation: (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Question of presumption — where assessee has both own and borrowed funds and advances funds interest-free, which source is to be presumed?
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that where the assessee has sufficient own / interest-free funds to cover the interest-free advances, a presumption arises that the advance came from own funds and no s. 36(1)(iii) disallowance is warranted. This presumption is rebuttable but the burden is on the Revenue.
Section relevance: Defines the 'mixed pool' presumption — own-funds-first; controls disallowance under s. 36(1)(iii).
4. T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Bad-debt claim u/s 36(1)(vii) — whether assessee must establish that the debt has become irrecoverable, or whether mere write-off in the books is sufficient post-FA 1989 amendment to s. 36(1)(vii).
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that post-FA 1989 (which removed 'established' from s. 36(1)(vii)), the assessee is required ONLY to write off the debt as irrecoverable in the books of account. Proof of actual irrecoverability is not required. The Revenue cannot insist on demonstration of efforts to recover.
Section relevance: Landmark on s. 36(1)(vii) — write-off-suffices test. Removes evidentiary burden on assessees.
5. Vijaya Bank v. CIT
Citation: (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Bank's treatment of bad debts — whether mere debit to P&L (with corresponding 'provision' account in balance sheet) is 'written off' for s. 36(1)(vii), or whether the loan account in the customer's ledger must itself be reduced.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that 'write-off' in books u/s 36(1)(vii) is satisfied if the debt is reduced in the asset side (provision netted against advances on the balance sheet) AND debited to P&L. The customer's ledger need not be individually credited. This is significant for banks which cannot legally write off in customer ledgers without legal action.
Section relevance: Important for banking sector — accounting-treatment-suffices under s. 36(1)(vii).
6. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Borrowing costs / loan-raising expenses — Revenue treated as capital; assessee claimed as revenue u/s 37 and interest u/s 36(1)(iii).
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that interest on borrowed capital and expenses for raising loan are revenue and allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) / s. 37. The character of borrowing — for capital or revenue use — does NOT change the deductibility of the cost of raising it. Read with later Madras Industrial Investment (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC), the principle extends to spread of discount on bonds.
Section relevance: Foundational on s. 36(1)(iii) — cost of borrowing is revenue, irrespective of purpose.
7. DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
Citation: (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of capital asset used for business — Revenue argued for capitalisation (cost of asset) rather than s. 36(1)(iii) deduction. Pre-FA 2003 (which introduced proviso requiring capitalisation till 'first put to use').
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held (pre-amendment) that interest u/s 36(1)(iii) was deductible even if the borrowed funds were used to acquire a capital asset, so long as borrowing was for business. The legislative response was the Proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) (FA 2003 w.e.f. AY 2004-05) requiring capitalisation till the asset is first put to use.
Section relevance: Historic — superseded prospectively by FA 2003 proviso. Important for understanding the temporal scope of capitalisation rule.
Function in the statutory architecture
Section 36 is the specific-deductions catalog for PGBP. It supplements the general s. 37 deduction by enumerating particular categories — insurance, employee contributions, interest, NPS contributions, gratuity funds, bad debts, NPA provisions, special reserves, STT/CTT. Each clause has its own conditions and timing rules.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively amended in every recent FA. Major reforms: (a) FA 2003 — proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) capitalising pre-use interest. (b) FA 2017 — s. 36(1)(viia) extended to NBFCs. (c) FA 2021 — Explanation 2 to s. 36(1)(va) codifying Checkmate Services position (employee PF deduction only on actual remittance to employee's account by due date). (d) FA 2024 — s. 36(1)(iva) NPS deduction cap raised from 10% to 14% of salary.
Operative consequences
• Insurance — business stock, cattle, employee health.
• Interest on borrowed capital (s. 36(1)(iii)) — deductible; pre-asset-use capital expenditure CAPITALISED to cost.
• Employee PF (s. 36(1)(va)) — strict due-date compliance per Checkmate Services / FA 2021 Explanation 2.
• NPS employer contribution (s. 36(1)(iva)) — up to 14% of salary post-FA 2024.
• Bad debts (s. 36(1)(vii)) — subject to prior inclusion in income (s. 36(2)).
• Bank NPA provision (s. 36(1)(viia)) — operative for banks + NBFCs (FA 2017).
• STT (xv) / CTT (xvi) — anti-cascading for derivative trading.
Verified cases on point
Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT — (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) — 3-Judge Bench
Holding. Foundational on s. 36(1)(va) employee PF contribution. Held — the due date for s. 36(1)(va) deduction is the due date under the RESPECTIVE Provident Fund / Employees' State Insurance Act / etc. — not the s. 139(1) return-of-income due date. Therefore, if the employer fails to remit the employee's contribution within the PF Act due date, the deduction is FOREVER LOST — it cannot be revived by remittance before the s. 139(1) date. Statutorily codified by FA 2021 inserting Explanation 2 to s. 36(1)(va). Overrules the pre-FA 2021 favourable HC line (Alom Extrusions, Sagun Foundry, etc.). Watershed authority that has tightened employer PF compliance.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 36 — Other deductions
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Lists specific allowances for computing PGBP: (i) insurance premium on stocks; (ia) cattle insurance; (ib) employee health-insurance premium; (ii) bonus/commission to employees; (iii) interest on borrowed capital used for business; (iiia) discount on Zero-Coupon Bond; (iv) employer's PF/super-annuation contribution to approved fund; (iva) employer's NPS contribution (cap raised to 14% by FA 2024 for non-Govt employers); (v) employer's gratuity-fund contribution; (va) employee's PF/ESI deposit by due date under the respective Act (Checkmate Services); (vi) animal-loss write-off; (vii) bad debts; (viia) provision for bad debts (banks/FIs); (ix) family-planning expenditure by companies; (xii) STT (since FA 2008); (xv) CTT (since FA 2013); (xvii) sugar-cooperative-society purchases above SAP; (xviii) MTM/expected losses computed under ICDS (FA 2018).
Section Commentary
Catalogue of specific deductions
Section 36(1) lists specific allowances that, by virtue of s. 29, must be allowed in computing PGBP if the assessee satisfies the prescribed conditions. The catalogue grows by accretion — STT (FA 2008), CTT (FA 2013), ICDS-driven MTM (FA 2018, sub-clause (xviii)), MSME-related provisions. Unlike s. 37 (residuary), s. 36(1) deductions are not contingent on a 'wholly and exclusively for business' filter — they have their own specific conditions.
Interest on borrowed capital — s. 36(1)(iii)
The most-litigated clause. Allows interest on capital borrowed for the purposes of business / profession. Two key Supreme Court principles: (i) S.A. Builders — 'commercial expediency' permits interest deduction even where borrowed funds are advanced interest-free to subsidiaries / third parties, if a prudent businessman would so advance. (ii) Munjal Sales — rebuttable presumption that interest-free advances came from own / interest-free funds where assessee has sufficient pool. Pre-FA 2003 position (Core Health Care) allowed interest on borrowed capital for capital asset acquisition; FA 2003 inserted PROVISO requiring capitalisation up to date asset is 'first put to use'.
Employee PF / ESI — s. 36(1)(va) — Checkmate Services landmark
Employee's contribution to PF / ESI / other welfare fund deducted by employer is, in essence, TRUST MONEY held by the employer. Section 36(1)(va) requires it to be deposited by the due date prescribed under the respective welfare law. Checkmate Services (SC 2022) settled that this is a STRICT deadline — failure permanently loses the deduction. Section 43B does NOT rescue it (only employer's own contributions get the s. 43B safe-harbour up to s. 139(1) due date). FA 2021 inserted Expln 2 to s. 36(1)(va) and Expln 5 to s. 43B codifying the Checkmate position. This is now the single most important PGBP compliance trip-wire for payroll-heavy clients.
Bad debts — s. 36(1)(vii) — TRF / Vijaya Bank line
Post-FA 1989 (which removed 'established' from the section), the assessee only needs to WRITE OFF the debt as irrecoverable in the books — proof of actual irrecoverability is not required (TRF Ltd. (SC)). Vijaya Bank (SC) extends this to banks: reduction in advances account on balance sheet (provision-netting method) coupled with P&L debit qualifies as write-off, even without individual customer-ledger reduction. Pre-condition: the debt must have been taken into account in computing income of any earlier year (or represents money lent in ordinary banking course).
NPS — s. 36(1)(iva) — FA 2024 cap raise
Employer's contribution to NPS (notified pension scheme u/s 80CCD(2)) is allowed up to 10% of salary; FA 2024 raised this cap to 14% for non-Government employers in the new tax regime. This aligns with the Government-employee cap and is a major compliance update for HR / payroll teams.
Zero coupon bonds — s. 36(1)(iiia)
Discount on ZCBs issued by infrastructure / specified companies is allowed on a pro-rata basis over the life of the bond. Mechanics codified in Rule 8B.
STT / CTT — ss. 36(1)(xv) / (xvi)
Securities Transaction Tax (FA 2008) and Commodities Transaction Tax (FA 2013) — paid in respect of taxable transactions are allowable as business expenditure. For brokers / dealers, this is integral to their trading P&L.
MTM under ICDS — s. 36(1)(xviii)
Inserted by FA 2018 to permit deduction of MTM / expected losses computed in accordance with ICDS notified u/s 145(2). Brings ICDS-VIII (securities) and related standards into the deduction framework.
CA's check-list summary
(i) Employee PF / ESI — STRICT due-date trap (Checkmate). (ii) Interest on borrowings — capital-vs-revenue / pre-vs-post-put-to-use proviso. (iii) Bad debts — write-off in books sufficient post-1989. (iv) NPS cap monitoring at 14% under new regime. (v) STT / CTT pass-through. (vi) Form 3CD Cl. 20-21 captures these items.
FA 2026 impact: No fresh FA 2026 amendment. FA 2024 had raised employer NPS contribution cap u/s 36(1)(iva) from 10% to 14% for non-Government employers under the new tax regime. FA 2021 inserted Expln 2 to 36(1)(va) clarifying employee-PF strict due date.
Leading Decisions
1. Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Employee's contribution to PF / ESI deducted from wages — deposited by the employer beyond the due date prescribed under the PF/ESI Acts but BEFORE the due date for filing return u/s 139(1). Assessee claimed s. 43B safe-harbour. Revenue invoked s. 36(1)(va) read with Expln to disallow.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that EMPLOYEE'S contribution u/s 36(1)(va) is in the nature of TRUST MONEY held by the employer; if not deposited by the due date under the respective welfare law, the deduction is permanently LOST. Section 43B (which permits deferred payment up to s. 139(1) due date) applies only to EMPLOYER'S statutory dues; it does NOT rescue the employee contribution. The Court rejected the assessee's reliance on Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). FA 2021 had codified this position by Expln 2 to s. 36(1)(va) and Expln 5 to s. 43B (clarificatory and retrospective in operation according to Revenue's position; some HCs hold prospective).
Section relevance: Landmark — controls treatment of employee-PF/ESI under s. 36(1)(va). Crystallises the s. 36(1)(va) vs s. 43B distinction.
2. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (A)
Citation: (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Assessee borrowed on interest and advanced part of the funds interest-free to its subsidiary. Revenue disallowed proportionate interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the funds were not used 'for the purpose of business'.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is allowable where borrowed funds are advanced to a subsidiary or third party for 'commercial expediency'. The test is whether the assessee, as a prudent businessman, would have advanced the funds. The Court explicitly imported the 'commercial expediency' principle from the Madhav Prasad Jatia line.
Section relevance: Cardinal authority on s. 36(1)(iii) — commercial-expediency test for interest deductibility on borrowed funds diverted as interest-free advances.
3. Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT
Citation: (2008) 298 ITR 298 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Question of presumption — where assessee has both own and borrowed funds and advances funds interest-free, which source is to be presumed?
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that where the assessee has sufficient own / interest-free funds to cover the interest-free advances, a presumption arises that the advance came from own funds and no s. 36(1)(iii) disallowance is warranted. This presumption is rebuttable but the burden is on the Revenue.
Section relevance: Defines the 'mixed pool' presumption — own-funds-first; controls disallowance under s. 36(1)(iii).
4. T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Bad-debt claim u/s 36(1)(vii) — whether assessee must establish that the debt has become irrecoverable, or whether mere write-off in the books is sufficient post-FA 1989 amendment to s. 36(1)(vii).
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that post-FA 1989 (which removed 'established' from s. 36(1)(vii)), the assessee is required ONLY to write off the debt as irrecoverable in the books of account. Proof of actual irrecoverability is not required. The Revenue cannot insist on demonstration of efforts to recover.
Section relevance: Landmark on s. 36(1)(vii) — write-off-suffices test. Removes evidentiary burden on assessees.
5. Vijaya Bank v. CIT
Citation: (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Bank's treatment of bad debts — whether mere debit to P&L (with corresponding 'provision' account in balance sheet) is 'written off' for s. 36(1)(vii), or whether the loan account in the customer's ledger must itself be reduced.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that 'write-off' in books u/s 36(1)(vii) is satisfied if the debt is reduced in the asset side (provision netted against advances on the balance sheet) AND debited to P&L. The customer's ledger need not be individually credited. This is significant for banks which cannot legally write off in customer ledgers without legal action.
Section relevance: Important for banking sector — accounting-treatment-suffices under s. 36(1)(vii).
6. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Borrowing costs / loan-raising expenses — Revenue treated as capital; assessee claimed as revenue u/s 37 and interest u/s 36(1)(iii).
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that interest on borrowed capital and expenses for raising loan are revenue and allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) / s. 37. The character of borrowing — for capital or revenue use — does NOT change the deductibility of the cost of raising it. Read with later Madras Industrial Investment (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC), the principle extends to spread of discount on bonds.
Section relevance: Foundational on s. 36(1)(iii) — cost of borrowing is revenue, irrespective of purpose.
7. DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
Citation: (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of capital asset used for business — Revenue argued for capitalisation (cost of asset) rather than s. 36(1)(iii) deduction. Pre-FA 2003 (which introduced proviso requiring capitalisation till 'first put to use').
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held (pre-amendment) that interest u/s 36(1)(iii) was deductible even if the borrowed funds were used to acquire a capital asset, so long as borrowing was for business. The legislative response was the Proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) (FA 2003 w.e.f. AY 2004-05) requiring capitalisation till the asset is first put to use.
Section relevance: Historic — superseded prospectively by FA 2003 proviso. Important for understanding the temporal scope of capitalisation rule.
— End of Section 36 Case-Law Note —