← All Phrases

“Section 37(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(7)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(7) is State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT (33 SOT 7), cited in 39 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(7)

State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT
33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

When bad debts written off were not allowed as a deduction, any subsequent recovery from such bad debts cannot be brought to tax. This principle is upheld even if a deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under section 36(1)(viia).

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.
253 ITR 791 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot allow a claim for deduction that is raised afresh unless a revised return is filed. However, an assessee is not disabled from raising such a claim before appellate authorities if it was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the technical reason of not filing a revised return.

CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd.
216 Taxmann 327 · 2013 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

Payments made by an employer directly to the LIC towards an employees' group gratuity fund are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided the employer has no control over these funds.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another
7 SCC 421 · 2017 · Reported
26
citing judgments

The decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2017] 7 SCC 421 is referred to in the context of the rule of consistency, particularly concerning the application of provisions related to income calculation and disallowances.

CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.
257 ITR 343 · 2002 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

For income to be considered as having ceased to be payable and brought to tax under Section 41(1), it is not sufficient that the claim for repayment has become barred by limitation; there must be a release or write-off of the debt by the creditor in favour of the assessee.

ABN AMRO Bank NV v. ADIT
97 ITD 89 · 2005 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Interest paid by an Indian branch of a bank to its overseas head office is not allowable as a deduction. This is because the payment is not considered chargeable to tax in India, and therefore, Section 195 TDS provisions are not attracted.

BNP Paribas v. ACIT
149 Taxmann.com 56 · 2023 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Interest paid by an Indian branch to its Head Office is taxable in India as income accruing or arising in India, even if the branch is a Permanent Establishment (PE), especially after the insertion of an explanation to Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act.

166 (Mum.) and Dredging International v. Asstt. D1T (IT) 1201II
48 SOT 430 · 2011 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Foreseeable losses, when determined on an estimated basis as per Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7) and duly debited in audited accounts, are allowable as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of the accounting method used.

Judgments citing Section 37(7)