“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)

Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Maghan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

expenditure incurred are capital nature and are enduring benefit to assessee. 13. During appellate proceedings, it was submitted that explanation 2 to section 37(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 was inserted in Finance Act 2015. It does not have retrospective applicability. Moreover, the assessee has not incurred these expenditures ... employees and workers but also for the business activities. 14. On going through the entire facts of the case since, the amendment to Section 37(1) of the Act was inserted in Finance Act 2015 and is not retrospective, this expenditure is hereby allowed to be claimed as business expenditure

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

Bench in case of Biocon Ltd vs DCIT (supra), wherein, it has been held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. Even, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs New Delhi Television

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

were made in the context of Section 57(iii) of the Act where the language is somewhat narrower than the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1 ... Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Thought Works Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Thoughtworks Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1654/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., [For & On Behalf Of The Joint Erstwhile Partnership Commissioner Of Firm M/S. Kumaraswamy Income Tax, Mineral Exports], Bellary Range, No. 58, Cunningham Vs. Bellary. Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052. Pan: Aabfk8539K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr(Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22/03/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Gulbarga For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-4, Bengaluru Dated 22/03/2018 & The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143 [3] Of The Act Dated 28/03/2014, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143Section 14ASection 234Section 37

while examining the claim of the assessee to treat the expenditure incurred by it for installing the traffic signals as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, had held " for purpose of business" used in Section 37(1) of the Act should not be limited to meaning ... assessee is also benefited by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act, if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by law. Similarly, the words 'for the purpose of business' used in Section

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

debited to the P&L account in accordance with SEBI Guidelines, is an ascertained liability, and thus, allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 115. The said proposition has been applied by the Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. (supra ... shares at a discounted price on a future date in lieu of services rendered by the employees, which is allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The Special Bench further held that the said discount was an ascertained liability, since the employer incurred obligation to compensate

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Futurz Next Services Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3556/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 142Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Giovani Fashion Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 198/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Giovani Fashion Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Advocate Kanika Jain, Circle-10(1), D-80, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaccg6540N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.01.2022

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a notional and estimated disallowance of Rs.17,57,424/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a notional and estimated disallowance of Rs.28 ... under Section 37(1) of the Act. 6. The ld.AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs.17,745/- on the amounts paid as interest on service tax and income tax. 7. The Ld.AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

1 ITA No. 5827/Del/2017, 569 & 571/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

Harish Chander Taluja, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4110/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Harish Chander Taluja, Vs Acit, 1300, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Circle-63(1), New Delhi-110006 New Delhi. Pan-Aaept8815C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Chadha, Ca Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1374/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. CAdilla Healthcare Ltd., reported ... 1255/Bang/2019 recognition process variation, Patent and Trade mark and other registration expenses, are be considered as revenue expenditure, allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. In respect of the Annual fee/license fees paid the ledger account revels that these are recurring in nature, and hence cannot be treated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1373/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1255/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1254/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

Sri. Narayanaswamy Krishna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 17/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Koushik M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 24Section 24n

Sohan Lal Nayar (1974) 95 ITR 90 (Del) held that section 67(3) is not exhaustive and any deduction otherwise allowable under section 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid

M/S. Technova Taps India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1455/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CA

Section 143(1)(a)Section 37Section 37(1)

promote its business. However the Ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and made the disallowance of Rs.94,071/- under section 37(1) of the Act by treating it to be personal in nature. Page 3 of 5 Aggrieved by the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal ... that it is a pure business expense.” 8. Respectfully following the above view, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance made under section 37(1) of the Act. As we have allowed the appeal of assessee on merits, all other legal issues raised in this appeal is left open

Rajputana Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

ITA 7587/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar [CIT]–D.R

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

were also required to decide the allowability of expenses in the light of the expression “for the purpose of business” as used in Section 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, when identical expenditure incurred by the assessee company in the earlier years has been accepted as business expenditure right from

M/S Rajputana Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2919/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar [CIT]–D.R

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3715/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 705, 7Th Floor, Manjusha Building, Circle-19(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecp3680L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th July, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-31, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application Seeking Adjournment Of The Appeal Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That Although The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On Various Dates, No One Was Appearing. Further, The Notices Sent By Rpad Were Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘Left.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Further, The Notice Was Directed To Be Served By The Revenue & The Departmental Notice Server Who Was Deputed To Serve The Dasti Summons Has Reported That The Premise Of The Assessee Was Closed & No One Was Residing There For Which The Notice Was Fixed At The Gate Of The Assessee Company. The Report Of The Notice Server Is Also Placed On Record. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 30Section 37(1)Section 68

amounting to rupees 30,51,608/-. 4.1 Without prejudice to above The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by invoking the provision of section 37(1) of IT Act 1961 for testing the allowbility of business expenses ,which are covered