← 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)

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

maintenance of accounts. 15. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction for interest on swap under section 37(1) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is common for all these years, which is as follows

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

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 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, he expenditure in question was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Bellary vs. M/S Auro Minerals, Hospet

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1543/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

also held that the deduction claimed against the said retention of amount by the Monitoring Committee is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, as the said liability was not incurred by the Assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The said part of the proceeds ... therefore, the said amount retained by the- ,CEC/Monitoring Committee cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the specific provisions of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, the Assessee's claim of deduction of part of sales proceeds to be retained by the CEC/Monitoring Committee

M/S Auro Minerals, Hospet vs. Joint Commissionerof Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1329/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

also held that the deduction claimed against the said retention of amount by the Monitoring Committee is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, as the said liability was not incurred by the Assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The said part of the proceeds ... therefore, the said amount retained by the- ,CEC/Monitoring Committee cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the specific provisions of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, the Assessee's claim of deduction of part of sales proceeds to be retained by the CEC/Monitoring Committee

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments(India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

debts can be written off as irrecoverable and can be claimed as expenditure. The advances do not qualify for debts/bad debts. Under section 37(1), only expenditure, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively ... debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached

M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 253/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek, CAFor Respondent: Karkihalli, CIT-DR) &
Section 115JSection 158ASection 37

opinion that the said expenditure could not Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos. 252 & 253/Bang/2019 be allowed under Explanation 2(ii) to Section 37(1) as this is substantive provision. The Ld.CIT(A) thus upheld the additions of Ld.AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee ... both appeals relates to the disallowance of CSR expenditure. Both the authorities below have disallowed the claim by applying Explanation 2(ii) to Section 37(1) which is prospective in nature. The said explanation is w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and the assessment year under consideration is prior to relevant date. The Ld.AR

M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek, CAFor Respondent: Karkihalli, CIT-DR) &
Section 115JSection 158ASection 37

opinion that the said expenditure could not Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos. 252 & 253/Bang/2019 be allowed under Explanation 2(ii) to Section 37(1) as this is substantive provision. The Ld.CIT(A) thus upheld the additions of Ld.AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee ... both appeals relates to the disallowance of CSR expenditure. Both the authorities below have disallowed the claim by applying Explanation 2(ii) to Section 37(1) which is prospective in nature. The said explanation is w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and the assessment year under consideration is prior to relevant date. The Ld.AR

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 37(1)

Appellant prays that the education cess on income tax paid for the year ought to be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income.” 5. As the said additional grounds are legal grounds, wherein, the facts are on record and facts ... year and offered the amount to tax. Subsequently, in A.Y.2013-14 the Assessing Officer did not allow the provision as a deductible expense under section 37(1) of the Act due on the ground that provision is contingent in nature and hence not allowable. In view of the same there

M/S. Md. Noorudin Zaiwala, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S M.D. Noorudin Zariwala The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Prop. Mohd Noorudin Mondal) (Appeals)-Nfac, F Sector H-2 Line, Room No. 1, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Cheeta Camp, Trombay, Near Jama Masjid, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Afepg 6380 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Navin B. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

voluntarily paid donation to the mosque and which can only be considered u/s 80G of the Act and not in terms of section 37(1) of the Act. 5.7 We have heard rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this ground ... said payment of Rs.1,00,000 is in the nature of staff welfare incurred exclusively and necessarily for business and is allowable under section 37 (1) of the income tax act, 1961. 4.3.1 However it is seen from the remand report of the assessing officer that no corroborating evidence relating

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transactions the assessee has to prove that the expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business as per section 37(1) of the IT Act. The special provisions of chapter X of the IT Act overrides the general Provisions of the act which means that ... accordance with Arms length price.” (iv) On page 8 of the DRP direction, it was held that “for claiming any deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to produce the evidences to prove the receipt of actual services”. 11. Based on the aforementioned

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transactions the assessee has to prove that the expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business as per section 37(1) of the IT Act. The special provisions of chapter X of the IT Act overrides the general Provisions of the act which means that ... accordance with Arms length price.” (iv) On page 8 of the DRP direction, it was held that “for claiming any deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to produce the evidences to prove the receipt of actual services”. 11. Based on the aforementioned

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transactions the assessee has to prove that the expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business as per section 37(1) of the IT Act. The special provisions of chapter X of the IT Act overrides the general Provisions of the act which means that ... accordance with Arms length price.” (iv) On page 8 of the DRP direction, it was held that “for claiming any deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to produce the evidences to prove the receipt of actual services”. 11. Based on the aforementioned

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

maintenance of accounts. 15. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction for interest on swap under section 37(1) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is common for all these years, which is as follows

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

options is allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of section 37(1) of the Act, which reads as under: “Section 37(1) says that any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections ... shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head, "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of section 37(1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain