← All Phrases

“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)

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal

ITA 195/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

business is set up when the directors and staff are appointed and their salaries paid, computer acquired and installed. Hence, expenditure under section 37(1) is allowable. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications (165 Taxman 318) held that the assessee correctly claimed that date

Delhi Cargo Service Center, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, EmployeeFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 43B

viib) of the Act being share premium received by the assessee from domestic entities; disallowance of Rs. 12,83,016/- under section 37(1) of the Act being payment to PWC on behalf of IDFC Alternative Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,28,605/- under section 43B being late payment ... thus cannot be allowed. Liability for interest being in the nature of penalty, the Ld. AO made the impugned disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the liability for interest incurred by the assessee is compensatory in nature and thus is admissible

Umano Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3256/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

case in confirming the addition of Rs. 544537/- on account of ROC fee paid for increasing the authorized share capital, under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts ... circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 300000/- made by ld assessing officer under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of software expenses. 3. That ld CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 235/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

Nand Kishore Agrawal, 7. Since the purchase price paid by the assessee towards stock-in-trade possesses all the characteristics enumerated in section 37(1) of the Act and the same remained undisputed during the course of assessment, the Revenue is thus forbidden from disallowing the cost of purchases

Shri Shashikant Bhagvanjibhai Rajpara, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

that expenditure of Rs.29,30,229/- had been disallowed by the AO, finding it to be ingenuine in terms of provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. He contended that section69C of the Act subjected to tax expenditure, source of which was not explained. Therefore, in the present facts ... under section 115BBE which are applicable to additions of unexplained expenditures made u/s 69C of the Act and not to disallowance made under section 37(1) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee placed before us in PB Page

Constructora Sanjose Sa, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

ITA 582/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaconstructora Sanjose Sa, Vs. Dcit/ Acit-Int-Tax, Unit No. 602, Global Foywer Haryana Building Gold Course Road, Gurgaon -122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcc6553Q

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234A

account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance-sheet was an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, notwithstanding that the liability had not been discharged in the year in which the fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange occurred ... Assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance-sheet is allowable as expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. ” 22. Thus, the bench is of considered opinion that the issue requires to be remanded back to the Ld. AO with

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial

Golfgreen Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Ms. Nivedita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

paid under 3 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. section 201(1A)/206C(7) is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.” 3. The assessee filed revised return of income on 05.02.2016 declaring loss of Rs.68,69,71,022/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business ... Biocon Ltd. 10. Further, it was argued that the allowance of ESOP expenses being revenue expenditure and being deductible under section 37(1) of the Act was considered in the below cases:  PCIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels (P.) Ltd. - [2019] 104 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi)  PCIT v. New Delhi Television

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hms Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4190/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P

ACIT, Circle- 30(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue department stands dismissed

ITA 4044/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 80G

return. 4. The Assessee filed its reply dated 13.12.2016, which was not found acceptable by the AO, who by perusing/reproducing the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act held that the project expenses of 6,28,66,118/- does not fulfill the condition of Section 37(1) and cannot ... without any necessity, and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction therefore under section 37(1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. The manner to apply the test is to ask the question

Aztec Shiva Handicrafts & Arts Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vitcom Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3327/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 37(1)(iv)Section 80G

unique services is the result of high value billing is not reasonable and acceptable. The AO further held that as per section 37(1)(iv) the expenditure should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. The AO held that

Vajra Rubber Products Private Limited, Thrissur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 250Section 40A(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT

Uday Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7260/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2015-16 Uday Management Services The Acit Circle 27(1), Private Limited, New Delhi M-38/1, Middle Circle, Vs. Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 Pan Aaacu1484B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pradeep Batra, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Batra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7417/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar

Rfs India Telecom Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3053/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Tulsani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

allegedly holding that the said expenditure in not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore, be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Ld. CIT-Appeal-XXV, Delhi indulged in surmises and conjecture in upholding the purported addition

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar