← 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)

DCIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1777/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Hq (Judl.) to CIT-14, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

revenue on the other hand disallowed the same as being double deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35ABB of the Act and Section 37(1) of the Act. It is further observed that the Tribunal in assessee's case has consistently held the same to be an allowable deduction u/s.37(1

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

judgement relied upon by appellant and which directly or indirectly is pertaining to the period before the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision - was not in existence is not applicable io the present case. The judgement in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills ... rendered when the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision was not in existence. Further the judgement pertains to the issue of interest and damages and does not pertain to the issue of ‘offence’ and ‘compounding’ and ‘punishment. Thus any further judgement relied upon

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 814/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

judgement relied upon by appellant and which directly or indirectly is pertaining to the period before the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision - was not in existence is not applicable io the present case. The judgement in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills ... rendered when the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision was not in existence. Further the judgement pertains to the issue of interest and damages and does not pertain to the issue of ‘offence’ and ‘compounding’ and ‘punishment. Thus any further judgement relied upon

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 813/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतलक्ष्मी,न्यायिक

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

judgement relied upon by appellant and which directly or indirectly is pertaining to the period before the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision - was not in existence is not applicable to the present case. The judgement in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills ... rendered when the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision was not in existence. Further the judgement pertains to the issue of interest and damages and does not pertain to the issue of 'offence' and 'compounding' and 'punishment. Thus any further judgement relied upon

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 811/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

judgement relied upon by appellant and which directly or indirectly is pertaining to the period before the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision - was not in existence is not applicable io the present case. The judgement in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills ... rendered when the impugned Explanation 1 in Section 37(1) which provides a deeming provision was not in existence. Further the judgement pertains to the issue of interest and damages and does not pertain to the issue of ‘offence’ and ‘compounding’ and ‘punishment. Thus any further judgement relied upon

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

levy on this account is also not Penal in nature. It is further submitted that in order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, as has been held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) the following ... clear that conditions at (i), (ii) and (iii) above are negative conditions whereas the condition at (iv) above is a positive condition. Thus, section 37(1) allows deduction of any "expenditure" subject to conditions noticed above. In the case of the assessee, all the conditions laid down are fulfilled therefore

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डॉ० एस. सीतललक्ष्मी,न्यायिक

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

ITA 1844/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

held that the provision for warranty made on a scientific basis, is an ascertained liability deductible under section 37(1) of the Act. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of authorities below and the documents filed by both

Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4443/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23 Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-4(3)(1), Shop No. 25, Patwa Chawl, Vs. 648, Aayakar Bhavan, Shaikh Menon Street, M.K. Road, Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan : Abfcs4174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dt. 30-07-2024 & Has Sustained The Addition Of Rs. 5,40,97,148/- U/S. 68 Of The Act & An Amount Of Rs. 18,84,08,811/- U/S. 37(1) Of The Act. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That There Was A Delay Of 67 Days In Filing The Appeal & In Absence Of Any Application Moved By The Assessee, Explaining The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Private Limited, Bhayender East

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Since The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Hon'Ble High Court On The Itat'S Decision, Which Is Pending As On Date, This Appeal Is Being Filed To Keep The Issue Alive. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 50(1)Section 50(3)

incurred in the normal course of business, and not for any infraction of law. Therefore, the same is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.1,03,44,404/- made by the Ld. AO and sustained