← 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)

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/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

Msn Organics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/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

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

issuance of notice under section 148 dated 30/03/2021 on following grounds:- (i) Disallowance of claim of right liability payment under section 37(1) of the Act of Rs.400 crores; (ii) Tax liability of long term capital gains of Rs.25.35 crores arising on slump sale. Finally, addition was confirmed amount ... Rs.400 crore for disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act related to crystallised claim of right liability payment. The aggrieved assesse challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A), both on legal and on merit. The Ld.CIT(A) adjudicated the legal ground and allowed the appeal

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

under the Black-Scholes Model at Rs.338,41,91,912/-. The assessee sought to claim this differential as a business expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act, as debited in the Profit and Loss Account. However, it was noted that the assessee had not claimed this expenditure ... before the Ld. CIT(A) that the said ESOP expenditure was a genuine business expense and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the assessee’s contention and dismissed the appeal. The observations

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

offence or which is prohibited by law. Drawing our attention to the legislative intent behind the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act in Memorandum to Finance Bill, 1998, the Ld. AR submitted that it is only unlawful expenses such as protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes ... alternate argument advanced by the Ld. AR that the assessee’s claim of expense cannot be disallowed under the provisions of section 37(1) read with Explanation 1 thereto as well. It is only when in any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence

Jashan Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ishraq Contractor
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

conclusion has ignored the fact that it is only under conclusion has ignored the fact that it is only under Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies ... failed to appreciate the facts that the appellant had always suo facts that the appellant had always suo Moto disallowed Moto disallowed under section 37(1) the entire amount charged to the profit and under section 37(1) the entire amount charged to the profit and under section 37(1

Jeevandeep Edumedia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

spirit of law and the intention of the legislature. nd the intention of the legislature.  The Income Tax Act, through Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), The Income Tax Act, through Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), The Income Tax Act, through Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), already disallows ... accordance with the provisions of same was disallowed in accordance with the provisions of same was disallowed in accordance with the provisions of section 37{1) of the IT Act while computing income under the section 37{1) of the IT Act while computing income under the section 37{1

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

head Profits and gains of business or profession', there are sections granting deductions in respect of specific expenses or allowances. Similarly, there is section 37(1), which grants deduction for expenses not specifically set out in other sections, if the conditions stipulated in the section, are fulfilled. All other items ... expenses, which fulfil the requisite conditions, gain deductibility under section 37(1). To put it in simple words, this section is a specific provision for granting deduction in respect of the unspecified or the general categories of expenses Discount on ESOP is a general expense and hence covered

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

head Profits and gains of business or profession', there are sections granting deductions in respect of specific expenses or allowances. Similarly, there is section 37(1), which grants deduction for expenses not specifically set out in other sections, if the conditions stipulated in the section, are fulfilled. All other items ... expenses, which fulfil the requisite conditions, gain deductibility under section 37(1). To put it in simple words, this section is a specific provision for granting deduction in respect of the unspecified or the general categories of expenses Discount on ESOP is a general expense and hence covered

DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi, Income Tax Department vs. Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Through Legal Heir Shri Aman Sethi, S

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3444/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Shri Aman Sethi (Legal Heir Of Central Circle-6, Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi New Delhi Through Legal Heir Shri Aman Sethi, 521, Gk-2, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abyps3902L Assessee By : Shri Akash Ojha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Akash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle, 5(1)(1)., Gautam Buddha Nager

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

ITA 2310/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 924ASection 928Section 92CSection 92F

appreciating that entire leasehold improvements expenditure claimed as revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 11,49,23,267 is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1)/30(a)(i) of the Act. 9.3. That on facts of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP failed to appreciate that

Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L, Hyderabad vs. DCIT (Int, Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/HYD/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

STE HHART HRT, keRTaTE Te IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad MAR Pe, ane wars wae

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl India Project Office (Formerly Pirelli Cavi Sistemi S P A India Project Office), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, ( Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/HYD/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक सदस्य

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

struck down. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds: 2. Re: Deduction in respect of Employee Stock Compensation Expenses (ESOP) under section 37(1) of the Act 2.1 On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in passing the order ... examination of the deduction claimed by the Appellant in respect of Employee Stock Compensation Expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.2 On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the Employee Stock Compensation Expenses

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1080/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1079/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ACIT Spl. Range-7, New Delhi vs. Prudent-Agri Commodities India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue partly allowed

ITA 1743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Y.: 2014-15 Acit, Special Range-7, Prudent Agri Commodities C.R. Building, New Delhi Vs India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Sunder Agri Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.) 68/2, Rnm Centre, Janpath New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aascs3922N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxv, New Delhi Dated 21.12.2018 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 On 26.11.2014 Declaring An Income Of Rs. 1,06,26,080/- The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & Statutory Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.08.2015. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Was Issued On 06.06.2016 & 12.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 37

account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of the balance- sheet is an item of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA

Gdg Educational Trust, Sohna vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 1, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1057/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI