“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)

Aban Infrastructure Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 82/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी वी. दुगा2

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. CIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

disallowance. 49. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Further, he submitted that the amendment brought to section 37(1) by Finance Act 2014, inserting Explanation 2 was brought prospectively from 1.4.2015 and prior to 1.4.2015 the expenditure incurred towards CSR is allowable ... nature of expenditure is not in dispute and considering that the expenditure is incurred prior to the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1), the CSR expenditure is allowable. 50. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the construction business of the assessee and thus not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Considering the material available on record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1344/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

ITA 2575/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla and Shri Pratik PodarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 35Section 40

from sale of R&D products and assets. Further, the CIT(A) also allowed deduction for education cess paid by the Assessee under Section 37(1) of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) granting the above ... Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) allowing deduction for Education Cess under Section 37(1) of the Act. We note that by way of Finance Act 2022 Explanation 3 has been inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act with

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 43B

force would be no ground to deny the claim of the assessee for deduction, which otherwise satisfies all the conditions referred to in section 37(1) The facts and circumstances of the present case, the expenditure in question was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business

Jaichand Bakliwal, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-4(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 10/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6833/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Poojan Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

also not applicable to instant case - Held, yes [Paras 10.3, 11.28 & 12] [In favour of assessee] Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. II. Section 37(1), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business - expenditure - Allowability of [Commencement of business] - Assessment year 2009-10 Assessing Officer

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

accorded by Pr.CIT-1, Bengaluru vide letter dated 8/12/2017 received in this office on 13/12/2017.” v) “6. Conclusion 6.1. Under the provisions of section 37(1) any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable ... year 2014-15, the business expenses claimed by the assessee in his return filed for A.Y.2015-16 is not allowable as per provisions of section 37(1) of the Income-taxAct,1961.” ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 10 of 73 2.15 According to Ld. A.R., the observations

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Sri C Anil Rahashekar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1733/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153C

assessee, the entire quantity of iron ore is illegally extracted iron ore. Therefore the entire URD purchases can be disallowed under explanation to section 37(1) of IT. Act 1961. Since it was illegally extracted iron ore on which no royalty is being paid and there were no valid permits ... unregistered dealers. ITA No.1733 - 1735/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 25 (III). Further, the assessee was also asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) should not be invoked, by treating the unregistered purchase as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness

Proctor & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax Mumbai -2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1221/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprocter & Gamble Home Vs. Pr. Cit – 2 Products Pvt Ltd., Room No. 344, 3Rd 495 P&G Plaza, Cardinal Floor, Aayakar Gracias Road, Chakala, Bhawan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai- 400099. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp4072C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Revision Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -2, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 92C

option and hence any expenditure debited during the vesting period remains contingent in nature, and therefore, does not qualify deductibility as per section 37(1). The mistake in allowing the aforesaid expense has resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 2.77 crore. In the light of above fact and order

Dow Agro Sciences India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14 (1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal are disposed of as infructuous

ITA 1234/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sixty Days Prior To “The Timeline For The Assessment Order, It Is Implied That Such Order Must Precede 31 December By Not Less Than Sixty Days.”

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

Section 234B is disposed of as being consequential, while Ground No. 20 pertaining to claim of deduction in respect of education cess under Section 37(1) of the Act is disposed of as being not pressed on the basis of statement made by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

appeal is dismissed. 046. Ground no. 4 is with respect to claim of the assessee in respect of Employees Stock Option Scheme under Section 37(1) of the Act. 047. Briefly stated facts shows that assessee has issued a stock option to selected employees under Employee's Stock Option Ipca ... incurred in insurance of shares at a discount at a future date in lieu of the employees services is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 082. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs and has offices