“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 Manikaran Power Ltd, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

been made to various persons who are not having any properties which were rented to the assessee and the same was disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. It was a submissions that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that in respect of the issue of bogus purchases ... same could not be considered under Section 68 of the Act and the same was liable to be considered under Section 37(1) of the Act. It was a submission that against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the additions representing

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 38/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI

Snw Smith Consultant Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 2635/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansnw Smith Consultant Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 5, 112-Gl, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. 22, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aakcs4626B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Hasneeta Matta, Advocate Shri Mahan Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, This Is Second Round Of Appeal After Setting Aside The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee To The File Of The Ao By The Coordinate Bench Vide Ita No.1588/Del/2020 To Verify The Expenditures Claimed By The Assessee Even Though There Was No Business Income

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

genuine and/or of a capital/personal nature and/or not wholly and exclusively incurred for purposes of business. 7. Legal Position - Allowability of expenses 7.1. Section 37(1) of the Act is concerned with 'any expenditure' (not being expenditure in the sections 30 to 36) and not being in the nature

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

business deduction under the provisions of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act”). In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out to provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, and submitted that under section 37(1) of the Act the fundamental condition for allowability is that the expenditure must ... voluntarily and without any compelling necessity or mandatory. It is, in this regard, also relevant to refer to the legislative history of section 37(1) of the Act, wherein the Income Tax Bill of 1961 initially proposed to lay down that “necessity” of the expenditure would be a condition

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

business deduction under the provisions of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act”). In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out to provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, and submitted that under section 37(1) of the Act the fundamental condition for allowability is that the expenditure must ... voluntarily and without any compelling necessity or mandatory. It is, in this regard, also relevant to refer to the legislative history of section 37(1) of the Act, wherein the Income Tax Bill of 961 initially proposed to lay down that “necessity” of the expenditure would be a condition

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.367/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Saroj Gupta Acit (Central Circle) M/S Aakash Hospital & Diagnostic बनाम/ Vs. Railway Board Building Main Bazar, Nalagarh (Hp) -174101 The Mall, Shimla (Hp) 171003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahvpg-9358-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessingofficer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-09-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Twin Additions Of Rs.41.94 Lacs & Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

JCIT OSD Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2260/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred ... assessee for the purpose of business or profession and shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The intent of Parliament in bringing the aforesaid provision is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 and is reproduced as under

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2259/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred ... that CSR expenses would not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2 to section 37(1) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the assessment year 2015-16), which provided that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2258/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred ... that CSR expenses would not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2 to section 37(1) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the assessment year 2015-16), which provided that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 1573/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred ... that CSR expenses would not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2 to section 37(1) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the assessment year 2015-16), which provided that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1555/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6096/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 801A

37, which is applicable for computing income under the head 'business income' only. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that the scope of Section 37(1) of the Act is limited so far as the applicability of Section 80G is concerned. 13. We find that the Co-ordinate Benches have

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5950/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 32

Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.749/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Caspian Impact Vs. Dy.Cit Investments Private Ltd, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcs4132K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 27.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43B

made the additions of Rs.1,64,955/- under section 36(1)(iii), Rs.13,22,458/- under section 37(1) and Rs.10,41,545/- under section 43B of the Act, making a total adjustment of Rs.25,28,958/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the CPC the assessee filed appeal before ... order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us challenging only the addition of Rs.13,22,458/- under section 37(1) and Rs.10,41,545/- under section 43B of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted detailed arguments both on the legal

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 565/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 1. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad – 382 415 2. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 2(17)Section 250

held that the amount paid to MI was penal in nature and not allowable as business expenditure in view of Explanation-1 to section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act"). 13. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance made by the AO, the assessee preferred ... profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. He referring to the Explanation 1 & Explanation 3 to Section 37(1) of the Act observed that expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law includes

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 351/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 2(17)Section 250

held that the amount paid to MI was penal in nature and not allowable as business expenditure in view of Explanation-1 to section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act). 13. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance made by the AO, the assessee preferred ... profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. He referring to the Explanation 1 & Explanation 3 to Section 37(1) of the Act observed that expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law includes

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5062/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Jaro Institute Of Technology Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Management & Research Ltd. Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai 11Th Floor, Vikas Centre, Dr. C. G. Vs. Road, Chembur, Fci, S.O. Mumbai – 400074. Pan/Gir No. Aaccj2107Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Thakkar Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The 1" Appeal Of 118 Days & Ought To Have Considered The Bonafide Reasons & Compelling Circumstances, Supported With Affidavit, That Had Precluded The Appellant To File The 1" Appeal In Time, 2.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Disallowance Of Sales & Promotion Expenses Of Rs.2,73,78,889, Jaro Institution Of Technology Management & Research Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Jaro