← 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)

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 182/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

activity. Income earned from the activity is still very much business income and any expenditure made for the activity is business expenditure. Section 37(1) of the Act refers to expenditure incurred by an Assessee "for any purpose which is an offence" or "which is prohibited by law". Such expenditure ... addition of ?9129,42,25,780/- as made by the assessee on account of illegal expenses in the light of explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. 6.1. The facts in brief are that the Id. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee got environmental clearance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

activity. Income earned from the activity is still very much business income and any expenditure made for the activity is business expenditure. Section 37(1) of the Act refers to expenditure incurred by an Assessee "for any purpose which is an offence" or "which is prohibited by law". Such expenditure ... addition of ?9129,42,25,780/- as made by the assessee on account of illegal expenses in the light of explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. 6.1. The facts in brief are that the Id. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee got environmental clearance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 180/CTK/2020[209-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

activity. Income earned from the activity is still very much business income and any expenditure made for the activity is business expenditure. Section 37(1) of the Act refers to expenditure incurred by an Assessee "for any purpose which is an offence" or "which is prohibited by law". Such expenditure ... addition of ?9129,42,25,780/- as made by the assessee on account of illegal expenses in the light of explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. 6.1. The facts in brief are that the Id. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee got environmental clearance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle, Sambalpur vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

activity. Income earned from the activity is still very much business income and any expenditure made for the activity is business expenditure. Section 37(1) of the Act refers to expenditure incurred by an Assessee "for any purpose which is an offence" or "which is prohibited by law". Such expenditure ... addition of ?9129,42,25,780/- as made by the assessee on account of illegal expenses in the light of explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. 6.1. The facts in brief are that the Id. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee got environmental clearance

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 143(3)Section 263

appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ltd. 160 Pr. CIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) taxmann.com 357 (Delhi) Order dt. March 01, 2024. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business expenditure Allowability of (Loss on sale of loan portfolio) Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee had sold loan

International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.328/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) International Seaport (Haldia) Vs Acit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Private Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaci 9468 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That Two Issues Are Involved In The Assessee’S Appeal, One Is The Denial Of The Deduction U/S.80Ia Of The Act In Respect Of Miscellaneous Income To An Extra Rs.4,99,372/- & The Second Issue Was Disallowance Of The Disallowance Of The Amortization Of The Leasehold Rent Allegedly By The Ao Claiming The Same To Be Claim Of Depreciation To An Extent Of Rs.42,32,776/-. It Was Submission That In Respect Of The One Number Imported Slewing Ring Roller Bearing From The Original Manufacturer Of The Same I.E. Rothe Erde, Germany, Which Was An Important & Expensive Spare Required For The Operation Of The Stacking &

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Madhushree Enterprises, Kampli, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 276CSection 37(1)Section 41(1)

earning the above income Page 3 of 7 since the entire activity is an illegal mining and therefore as per the Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, not allowed while computing the taxable income. 3. Thereafter the AO based on the information that one of the creditors

Gammon Neelkanth Realty Corporation, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 6239/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

learned DRP has erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 172.90 crores paid to Indus Towers Limited ('Indus') as "Network Site Rentals" under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO, based on the directions ... incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and directed the AO to disallow the same under section 37(1) of the Act. In conformity, the AO passed the final assessment order, inter alia, making the impugned addition on this issue. 11. We have considered

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

learned DRP has erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs 172.90 crores paid to Indus Towers Limited ('Indus') as "Network Site Rentals" under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO, based on the directions ... incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and directed the AO to disallow the same under section 37(1) of the Act. In conformity, the AO passed the final assessment order, inter alia, making the impugned addition on this issue. ITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015

ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik vs. Taparia Tools Limited, Nashik

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1337/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Viral Shah
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 429/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 428/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Madhusudan Reddy Pasham, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 427/HYD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R
Section 132(4)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hubtown Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

overlooked the fact that granting deduction under Section 80G would indirectly nullify the statutory disallowance under Section 37(1) and create an undue tax advantage, contradicting the principle that CSR expenditure should be an obligation of the company and not a means of tax reduction ... thousand crores or more or a net profit of five crore rupees or more during any financial year. The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Act, shall

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

overlooked the fact that granting deduction under Section 80G would indirectly nullify the statutory disallowance under Section 37(1) and create an undue tax advantage, contradicting the principle that CSR expenditure should be an obligation of the company and not a means of tax reduction ... thousand crores or more or a net profit of five crore rupees or more during any financial year. The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Act, shall

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Guwahati Unit and a corresponding reduction in 80-IE deduction. The AO then examined channel partner/retail promotion expenses and conference related expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was inadequate to substantiate that the entire expenditure pertained exclusively ... appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Guwahati Unit and a corresponding reduction in 80-IE deduction. The AO then examined channel partner/retail promotion expenses and conference related expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was inadequate to substantiate that the entire expenditure pertained exclusively ... appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Guwahati Unit and a corresponding reduction in 80-IE deduction. The AO then examined channel partner/retail promotion expenses and conference related expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was inadequate to substantiate that the entire expenditure pertained exclusively ... appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order