“Section 37(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court

2,118

citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court

1,596

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT

378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court

1,569

citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court

1,261

citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.

312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court

968

citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

Aarya24Kt (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1396/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 44A

payment of the credit card bills was effectuated from the company's bank account. Consequently, these expenses ought to be deemed deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Appellant avers that the learned CIT(A) erroneously failed to recognise the verifiable and genuine nature

Sabre Travel Network (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)Section 92C

appellant on account of fluctuation in the rate of FE as on the date of the balance-sheet was allowable as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 12 ITA 1056/Mum/2017 Sabre Travel Netwrok (India) Pvt Ltd Respectful ,following the above mentioned two judgments of the honorable Apex court

ACIT- Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. First Advantage Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle 4(2)(1) Vs. First Advantage Private Room No. 640/642, 6Th Limited, First Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Interface Building No.7, M.K. Road, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai – 40 Mumbai – 400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0706E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Zeenia Handa Respondent By : Nitesh Joshi & Sunil Jhunjhunwala Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 14.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Citia) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 37(1) Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,01,96,568/- Incurred Towards Software License Expenses By Considering The Same As Revenue Expenditure. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Considering The Expenses Incurred By The Assessee On Software License Fee As Revenue Expenditure Instead Of Capital Expenditure, Without Appreciating The Fact That It Is An "Intangible Asset. The Income-Tax Act Clearly Categorizes The "License" As An Intangible Assets For Claiming Depreciation U/S 32 Which Is Based On The Ordinary Meaning Of The Same."

For Appellant: Ms. Zeenia HandaFor Respondent: Nitesh Joshi &

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 37(1)

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance made under Section 37(1) of the Act for an amount of Rs.2,01,96,568/- incurred towards software license expenses by considering the same as Revenue expenditure

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 78/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 154

used in Capital Expenditure. Reliance is placed on the following judgments- 8.1. General Life Insurance vs. CIT [2006] 286 ITR 232 Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1991-92 - Whether expenditure incurred in connection with issuance of bonus shares is revenue ... expenditure - Held, yes 8.2. Navi Mumbai SEZ (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 152 ITD 828 6 Dhabriya Polywood Ltd. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Share capital, expenses to increase) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether where assessee incurred certain expenditure for increase

S.B.& T. Designs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 814/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhs.B. &. T. Designs Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Cit 8(1)(2) Room No. 15, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Yusuf Building, Abdul New Marine Line, Rehman Street, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 003 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics6223L Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dr. P. Daniel Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 23.02.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned C.I.T(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 6.18,65,166/-, Being The Bad Debts Claimed. 2. The Learned C.I.T(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Disallowances Of Bad Debts Of Rs. 6,18,65,166/-, Being The Sundry Drs. Written Off As Well As Sundry Balances Written Off. 3. The Learned C.I.T(A) Erred In Not Following The Principles Of Natural Justice. 4. The Learned C.It(A) Confirmed The Order Of The A.O. Directing The Assessee To Prove The Impossible Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

P a g e | 1 S.B. & T. Designs Ltd. Vs. The DCIT 8(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Asst Comm of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aristo Pharmceuticals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Kumar Rastogi & Ms.Shilpi KeshriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai(CIT-DR)

Section 115Section 37Section 37(1)

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no prohibition by law within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act on claiming Product Advertisement Expenses as deduction u/s. 37(1) without appreciating the fact that providing freebies by pharmaceutical companies is a natural ... CBDT) also issued a circular highlighting the expenditure incurred for providing "freebies" by the pharmaceutical and allied healthcare industry shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Act being an expenditure prohibited by the law. AO also noticed from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee company

Uma Rajendra Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 14A

claimed by the assessee is disproportionate to total turnover of Rs.78,94,803/-. Accordingly, he disallowed 20% of the electricity expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, which worked out to Rs. 3,11,856/-. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 12. We heard the parties

Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY

ITA 6548/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

amount paid for violation of any law in force and thereby it attracts the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO proceeded to disallow the same in terms of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee pleaded that this payment ... arising for consideration is, whether the payment of penalty is allowable as business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act. A reading of section 37(1) makes it clear that any revenue expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction while

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY

ITA 6547/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

ACIT, Circle Karnal, Karnal vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd., Karnal

ITA 7126/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 7126/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 Acit, Vs. M/S. Liberty Shoes Ltd., 13Th Circle, Karnal Mile Stone, Liberty Puram G.T.Road, Bastara, Kutail, Distt. Karnal. Pan : Aaacl3146K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

said payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, so the same is an allowable expenditure under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The above submission finds due support from the judgement of Hon ’ble Supreme Court in the case

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Frost and Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle -15, New Delhi vs. B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2622/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 Vs. New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 174/Del/2022 In Ita No.2622/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 New Delhi 110025 Vs. Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Rohtagi, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)

plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature of expenditure prescribed ... personal expenses of the assessee. Thus, in view of such mandate of law, the deduction of expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Manoj Raizada, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 5/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 & Co No. 28/Del/2021 Asstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 46ASection 9

facts in not appreciating that discussion made by the AO on the admissibility of the commission expenses in the context o section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 did not constitute the operating part of the AO’s order and hence, it did not require adjudication by the Learned ... section 40(a)(i) of the Act and without prejudice to the detailed finding given above, the payments are even otherwise disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act. This resulted in addition of Rs. 1,54,83,082/- to the income of the assessee. 7. Dissatisfied, the assessee filed

JCIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5810/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Wasim Arshad, CIT- DR

Assessing Officer held that the deduction claimed is not allowable as they fall under the exception provided under Explanation 1 to section 37(1). Though, the assessee contested the said disallowance before the first appellate authority, however, the disallowance was sustained. 24. We have considered rival submissions and perused ... violation of provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules thereunder has held that such expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench (supra), we delete the disallowance. Ground no. 4 is allowed. 27. Respectfully, following

JCIT, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

ITA 290/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

called foreign exchange fluctuation loss when in reality the notional loss arrived at does not represent any expenditure as per section 37(1) of the Act. 5. Whether on facts of the case, the CIT(A), Panaji-1 erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

JCIT, Special Range, Panaji vs. M/S Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

ITA 289/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V RaghavanFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 92/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

expenditure was either not genuine or; was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Act, therefore, we set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition of Rs.8,29,120/- (supra) made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 91/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40