“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)

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Dr. KIshor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iv)Section 80G(5)

contra, Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order 8. dated 28/03/2023, passed by the PCIT. He submitted that in view of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act CSR Expenses are not allowable as a deduction. In case, deduction under Section 80G of the Act is allowed in respect ... same would amount to indirectly allowing deduction for CSR Expenses which is otherwise explicitly prohibited in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in allowing the claim of deduction of INR 1,72,80,948/- under Section

Ucb India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1081/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234B

providing freebees in violation of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002 were inadmissible under Section 37(1) of the Act, being an expenses prohibited by the law. Hence, sales promotion expenses of INR 11,30,18,789/- ought to have been disallowed ... under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the Circular No. 5 of 2012 dated 01/08/2012, being clarificatory in nature, was effective from the date of implementation of the aforesaid Regulation, i.e., from 14/12/2009. The Assessing Officer failed to follow the aforesaid circular which was binding upon

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

alternate plea that if weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) is not allowed, then 100% of the expenditure should be allowed under section 37(1) has become academic. Accordingly the grounds raised in this regard do not warrant any adjudication. Weighted deduction for expenses incurred towards clinical trial expenses

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

DCIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2662/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., Vs Jcit (Osd), 204, Kailash Building, Central Circle-27, 26, Kg Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaccn1659D Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Nkg Infrastructure Central Circle-27, Ltd., New Delhi. 204, Kailash Building, 26, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaccn1659D

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT(OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2501/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Ansal Housing Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargm/S. Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. Dcit 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Cpc Prakash, 21, Barakhamba Bengaluru Road, New Delhi – 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv, Shri Sudarshan Roy, Ar Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. CHANDRA

Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

ITA 332/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

assessment year there was no income, the expenditure would not be deductible under that section. The Revenue relied strongly on the language of section 37(1) and contrasting the phraseology employed in section 57(iii) with that in section 37(1), pointed out that the Legislature had deliberately used words ... narrower import in granting the deduction under section 57(iii). Section 37(1) provided for deduction of expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits or gains of business or profession'. The language

Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

ITA 331/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Rrpr Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 4700/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee. 18. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) noted distinction between the scope of Section 57(iii) vis-à-vis Section 37(1) of the Act and found the action of the Assessing Officer to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The CIT(A) thus denied

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 53/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43Section 43B

erred in not allowing the expenditure, related to business expediency, amounting to Rs 21,42,901/- of Employee Contribution of PF & ESI under section 37(1) of the income tax act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law.” 4. Brief facts

Synergia Lifesciences Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Assessment Unit, Mumbai

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

ITA 938/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 135Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)Section 80G

payment is made to eligible entities as listed in section 80G of the Act. The assessee suo moto disallowed CSR expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, however, claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 08/09/2022 passed under section ... respect of CSR expenditure. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee has not claimed the CSR expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, and its claim is only restricted to section 80G of the Act. We find that a similar issue has come up for consideration

Ari Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 34,84,956/- is disallowed

ITA 382/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

fact situation of the case, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the expenditure incurred towards marketing support fee and transit support fee under section 37(1) of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

extent of additions made of INR 4,30,16,821 to the total income of the Appellant. Disallowance of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act of INR 1,00,66,601/- 2 Erred in directing to make further ad-hoc disallowance at certain percentage of sales and marketing ... months Le. 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018 amounting to INR 1,00,66,601/- (after deduction under section 80-IC) under section 37(1) of the Act. 3. Erred in disregarding the detailed explanations and written submission of the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings

Dinesh Industrial Corporation, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(1), Gautam Buddha Nagar

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

ITA 45/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramanand Roy, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Bimla Thakur, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2963/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediai.T.A. No.2963/Del/2022 Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B