← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1254/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

that post monitoring expenses under heading "Long term provisions" was not actual expenses and merely a provisions and not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1); secondly, cell utilization expenses claimed as deduction was contingent expenditure which might be or might not be incurred in future; hence, cell utilization expenditure ... allowable under section 37(1); thirdly, amount debited on account of land utilization was a sort of depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1249/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

that post monitoring expenses under heading "Long term provisions" was not actual expenses and merely a provisions and not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1); secondly, cell utilization expenses claimed as deduction was contingent expenditure which might be or might not be incurred in future; hence, cell utilization expenditure ... allowable under section 37(1); thirdly, amount debited on account of land utilization was a sort of depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1166/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

that post monitoring expenses under heading "Long term provisions" was not actual expenses and merely a provisions and not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1); secondly, cell utilization expenses claimed as deduction was contingent expenditure which might be or might not be incurred in future; hence, cell utilization expenditure ... allowable under section 37(1); thirdly, amount debited on account of land utilization was a sort of depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1165/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

that post monitoring expenses under heading "Long term provisions" was not actual expenses and merely a provisions and not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1); secondly, cell utilization expenses claimed as deduction was contingent expenditure which might be or might not be incurred in future; hence, cell utilization expenditure ... allowable under section 37(1); thirdly, amount debited on account of land utilization was a sort of depreciation on land which was not allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter

M/S. VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Punit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR. DR
Section 250Section 37(1)

erred in holding that site office and sample flat expenses incurred were in contravention of law and upheld invoking of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing the law under which such construction is prohibited. The Appellant submits that provision of Explanation 1 ... section 37(1) are not applicable to the facts of their case and pray that the addition of Rs.77,82,113 be deleted. Ground no 4: Without prejudice the above, CIT (A) erred in also holding that the expenditure incurred on site and sample flat

REGUS SOUTH MUMBAI BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6104/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarregus South Mumbai Dcit - 14(1)(2), Business Centre Mumbai Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. Level 4, Dynasty K. Road, New Marine Business Park, Andheri Lines. Mumbai- Kurla Road, J. B. Nagar 400 020 S.O, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr6068H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. Ar Revenue By Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 143(3)

allocation of such costs. 15. The learned AR also brought to notice that similar expenditure has been allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2013–14 and 2014–15, and copies of the assessment orders for those years were placed ... estimated or proportionate basis, without precise identification and supporting evidence of actual services rendered to the assessee, does not satisfy the requirement of section 37(1) of the Act. The learned DR emphasised that the assessee has not discharged its onus of substantiating the nature of services, their necessity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the assessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee’s entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the assessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee’s entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the assessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee’s entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5518/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5516/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Officer had framed the\nassessment in question dated 3rd April, 2025 disallowing the assessee's\nentire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act\nthereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation\nentries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the\ncourse ... nexpenses debited in the profit & loss account that are\nroutine business expenses such as purchase and otherwise\nsatisfy the conditions laid down in Section 37(1) of the Act,\nthe onus of the appellant is limited and does not extend to\nensuring that the parties to whom the appellant

Showing 1–20 of 4,308 · Page 1 of 216

...