← 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)

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

learned Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 11, Bangalore ('Addl. CIT') of disallowing the Appellant's claim of Rs,21,93,812 under Section 37(1) the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act), being contribution made to Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Steel Technology. It is prayed that the learned Addl ... directed to allow deduction of Rs.21,93,812 under Section 37(1) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has legally erred in upholding the action of the learned Addl. CIT of disallowing expenditure incurred on upfront fees

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee is concerned, the same is in relation to the issue whether education cess can be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act or has to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The additional ground of appeal being a legal ground

M/S Vrl Logistics Ltd, Hubli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2780/BANG/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

temporary staff. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel that these expenses are incurred to be allowed under section 37(1) and not because of the assessee having failed to incorporate the same under the mercantile system of accounting. It is an extension of the provision short

Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Aig General Income Tax-8(3)(1), Insurance Co. Ltd. 15Th Floor, Tower A, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 615, Peninsula Corporate Park, Vs. M.K. Road, G.K. Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, 400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct3518Q Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr Respondent By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Madhur Agrawal, Ars’ Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Madhur
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44

Insurance Co. Ltd.; AY 15-16 Incurred But Not Enough Reported (IBNER) amounting to ₹148,43,01,915/- held to be liable under section 37(1) of the Act by the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). 010. Fact shows that the assessee has debited the above ... provision are created as per the guidelines prescribed by the IRDA, the method of provisioning a scientific calculation, it is ascertained liability under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is an allowable expense. 011. The learned Assessing Officer held that it is a provisions created by the assessee

Dy CIT 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Olivia Impex Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 8046/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sri.R A Dhyani. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sri.Gunjan Kakkad.AR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee on account of the exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. Further, it stated that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the following have to be taken into account

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

allowable as revenue expenditure. We are therefore of the view that payment made as compensation is not hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) and is an allowable expenditure. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” 15. Following the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined ... around one-third of such expenses by the Government by way of tax expenditure. 18. According to the AO, the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income- tax Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Income

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

allowable as revenue expenditure. We are therefore of the view that payment made as compensation is not hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) and is an allowable expenditure. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” 15. Following the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined ... around one-third of such expenses by the Government by way of tax expenditure. 18. According to the AO, the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income- tax Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Income

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

fact that though the same was done as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines, yet the same was not an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No.18/2014 are being referred to. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

fact that though the same was done as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines, yet the same was not an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No.18/2014 are being referred to. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing

Tyrolit (I) Superabrasive Tools Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 539/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

paid by the Appellant while arriving at the assessed income for the year under appeal ought to be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO erred

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

ITO - 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Print Plus P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1938/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 7(3)(1) Vs. M/S Print Plus Pvt Ltd Room No. 142E, 1St 122, Bldg No. 2, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K.Road, Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp7030J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

find that these expenses under corporate social initiatives are claimed by the assessee as deduction in accordance with provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. We find that the ld. DRP in page 33 of its order in para 11.3.3 had reproduced the remand report dated 18/10/2016

DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Electronic Payment & Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 545/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

dated 11.11.2020, wherein while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held as under: “10. From perusal of section 37(1), which has been referred to supra, it is evident that an assessee is entitled to claim deduction under the aforesaid provision if the expenditure ... price at which it is issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of section 37(1) of the Act. The primary object of the aforesaid exercise is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services

M/S Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd. (Formerly Samta Builders Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2019[20115-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4860/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ M/S. Transcon Skycity Pvt. Dcit-Cc-4(2) Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Vs. (Formerly Samta Builders Building, Nariman Point, Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400021. 622-B/1, Goshala Compound, Lbs Marg, Mulund(W), Mumbai- 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs6362G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri B. K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Holding That The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By The Ao Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Bagchi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

documents along with explanation and justification as how these expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business within the provision of Section 37(1) of the I. T. Act. The explanation of the assessee was not found justifiable, therefore, the said claim was added to the income ... formulate and advocate policy on key international issues. Accordingly, the expenditure incurred by appellant on education of director fulfill the conditions of Section 37(1) and are incurred in furtherance of appellant’s business interest and hence allowable. The contention of the assessee is that the plea was taken before

M/S. Infinera India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2589/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 80G

accordingly, apply to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. 12. Thus, CSR expenditure is to be disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1 ... Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "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 be allowed