“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)

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

current year and therefore cannot be allowed to the assessee as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income-Tax Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of provisions for periodic

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

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

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of allowable expenditure/s under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and an identical view was also taken by Apex Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT reported ... assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of allowable expenditure/s under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has taken consistent view in an another appeal in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT reported

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO /DRP ought to grant deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (collectively referred to as `Cess') paid by the Appellant along with income

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solution Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 171/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 37Section 40

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 IT(TP)A No.171/Bang/2022 Page

Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 630/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.630/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Cypress Semiconductor The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology India Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.65/2, Begmane Laurel, C Block, Bagmane Tech Park C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcc2470Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Sumit Khurana, Ca Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Before The Tribunal. However, During The Course Of Hearing The Learned Ar Had Argued Only Two Grounds, Namely, Ground 2 & Ground 3. Ground 2 & 3 Argued By The Learned Ar Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the learned DRP ought to grant deduction under section 37(1) of the Act for Cess paid by the appellant during the year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances the learned AO erred

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

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

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet was an item of expenditure under section 37(1) b. Exchange differences arising on foreign currency transactions have to be recognized as income or as expense in the period in which they arise. The important

Djs Stock & Shares Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Section 37(1)

submitted that the said penalty cannot be equated with the penalty levied for infraction of any law and hence proviso to section 37(1) of the Act would not apply to the above said payment. Accordingly he submitted that learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made ... holding that the penalty charges levied by the Stock Exchange cannot be treated to penalty falling within the ambit of proviso to section 37(1) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the above said decision of the Tribunal has since been uphold by Hon'ble High Court

Dy. CIT, Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 453/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh ParmarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Similar freebies in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied ... appellant contested that the AO erred in disallowing payments aggregating Rs.35,29,00,5981made to Healthcare Professionals (Doctors) by invoking an Explanation to section 37(1) and relying on CBDT circular No. 5/2012 dated 01.08.2012 without appreciating the fact that clause 6.8 introduced by the Medical Council of India

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar

Section 143(3)

used the yacht. 6. The Assessing Officer further held that the expenses claimed by the assessee-company cannot be allowed as expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act because it does not satisfy the following conditions :- (i) It is not incurred during the previous year. The yacht was brought

M/S Kable First Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

fact that expenses were accrued during the year and incurred for the purpose of business. Hence it satisfy the condition laid down in section 37(1) of the Act. 5. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance for claim of deduction of INR 3,35,10,157 under

M/S Kable First Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

M/S Kable First India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1694/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT

M/S.Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT