“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)

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'D' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 321/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Biocon Ltd. (121 taxmann.com 351), wherein it has been held that the ESOP expenditure is allowable to the assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. It is noted that, similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PVP Ventures

Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 319/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1174/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1173/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Agilent Technologies (International) Private Limited, Manesar, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3684/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Limited, Circle 1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Sector 8, Imt, Gurgaon Manesar, (Haryana) Gurgaon - 122051 Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayank Khannam, Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 19Section 21Section 92C

said companies, such as setting up and running schools, social business projects, etc. Such expenditure would include expenditure otherwise falling for consideration under section 37(1) of the Act. On the other hand, companies, instead of undertaking or participating directly in a project, may choose to give donations to institutions ... 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

Diosma Lifesciences Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4271/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardiosma Lifesciences Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 4(1), Qureshi Mansion, Shop No. 77, C-Wing, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Harmony Mall Commercial Thane West, Thane - 400 Premises, Bhagat Singh Nagar 602, Maharashtra No.1, Link Road, Goregaon(West), Mumbai - 400 104, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0525R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aadesh Rai, Addl. CIT, (Virtually appeared)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

observed that as per CBDT vide Circular No. 5/ 2012 dated 01.08.2012 expenses incurred on freebies to doctors are inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Act. Circular No. 5/2012 dt 01.08.2012 is reproduced below: P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2018-19 Diosma Lifesciences Private Limited “INADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSES ... their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. 3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business Income

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Kiran Infra Ispat Limited, Jaipur

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

opportunity of cross examination is provided more so when assessee placed on record all the evidences. The relevant findings are as under: Headnote: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found ... opportunity of cross examination is provided more so when assessee placed on record all the evidences. The relevant findings are as under: Headnote: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found

Qlar India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Qlar India Private Limited The Dcit, Circle 11(1) No.3, Old No.18& 23, 3 Rd Main Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 1St Phase, Peenya Chowringhee Square, Vs. Industrial Area, Bengaluru, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs4728C Assessee By : Shri K.M Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

assessment order observed that the aforesaid sum being penal in nature was disallowable in terms of Explanation (1) to Section 37(1) of the Act. Though the assessee assailed the issue before the ld. CIT(A), but he has omitted to adjudicate this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee ... involve payment of penalty for infraction of any law. According to him therefore, the impugned disallowance made under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act was unwarranted and prayed for deletion of the same. On the other hand, the ld. DR urged us to set aside this issue back

Srei Equipment Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Srei Equipment Finance Commissioner Of Income-Tax Limited (Appeals), 86C, Vishwakarma, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs3431L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Miss Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 45Section 45ISection 80G

eligible for 50% deduction under section 80G of the Act but according to the AO, there is no correlation between the provision of section 37(1) and 80G of the Act. In our opinion, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 80G of the Act even ... deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act, is not available fromAssessment Year 2015-16 as per the Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2. 2014.Whereas, the assessee company has made a claim for deduction of CSR expenses u/s. 80G of the Income

Chandan Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

ITA 3444/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

consideration, the assessee-company had made donations to various institutions and as the said expenditure was not allowable expenditure under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the assessee-company while computing the taxable income has added back the said amount and has not claimed any deduction while ... statutory CSR obligations u/s.135 of the Companies Act, they cease to qualify as voluntary donations. It was submitted that as per explanation to section 37(1), the CSR expenses are mandated by law, and as such, they lack the essential characterstic of voluntariness, which is a core requirement for claiming

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “SM-A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

Savex Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 4185/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Ms. Padmavathy S.: A.Y. : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) donations. The appellant had suo moto disallowed the entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2,78,16,000/- under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the taxable business income. In other words, the appellant did not claim the CSR expenditure as ‘business expenditure’ under Section ... submitted that the provision relating to disallowance of CSR expenditure has been introduced and is confined to the allowability of deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act only and it does not govern the deduction otherwise allowable under Section 80G of the Act. On behalf of the assessee, reliance

Augmont Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

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 ... Undisputedly, expenditure incurred towards CSR is specifically prohibited from being allowed as deduction towards business expenditure by insertion of Explanation - 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f01.04.2015. However, there is no such Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT corresponding amendment to section

Chemical Process Piping Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2953/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Chemical Process Piping Pcit, Mumbai-6, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R. No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, B.S.D. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 Govandi, Mumbai-400 088 020 Pan: Aaccc6212D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi & Shri Harshad Shah, Ld. Ars Department Represented By : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sudha Loyalka, Vs Ito, Prop.Tirupati Industries, 2/1, Ward-35(2), Block-41, Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabpl6055D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/15-16 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 27.09.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,52,180/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Fabrics & Readymade Garments Under The Name & Style As M/S. Tirupati Industries. The Assessee Has Shown Total Sundry Creditors Of Inr 6,77,21,342/- Which Includes Inr 3,48,88,095/- Under The Title “Retail Creditors Control Account”. In Order To Examine The Genuineness Of These Creditors, Ao Issued Notice U/S 133(6) Of The Act To 27 Parties Out Of Which Notices Issued To 20 Parities Amounting To Inr 2,78,20,495/- Were Returned Back For The Reason “Wrong Address/Incomplete Address/Non-Existed” Etc. The Ao Thereafter, Discussed Each Of The Parties To Whom Notices Were Sent & Reached To The Conclusion That These Parties Are Non-Existent & Made The Addition Of Inr 3,50,94,758/- As Bogus Creditors.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

ITA No.5143/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI