“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)

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1056/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1055/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 1054/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

The Asst. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

profit in the computation of income. The AO relied on the principle that expenses can only be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act, if they are incurred "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession." Since the unit was closed and no business ... Jackie Shroff v. ACIT (supra) that Irrecoverable advances, if made for business expediency, may be allowed as business loss under Section 28 or Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst. Years

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R

Section 115JSection 144Section 50

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &

Section 115JSection 144Section 50

Pravin Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, apeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 445/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jaria, staff of the AR’s officeFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr.DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 37(1)(iii)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “डी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee has not claimed the CSR expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, and its claim is only restricted to section 80G of the Act. Further, the learned CIT(A) also noted the fact ... accordingly, apply to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. 12. Thus, CSR expenditure is to be disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head Income Business and Profession. Further, clarification regarding of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 494/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

behalf of the Appellant. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, inter alia, the restriction imposed by the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) does not bar the Appellant from claiming any deduction eligible w/s.80G of the Act 4.3 The Appellant therefore prays that the aforesaid disallowance ... claimed under section 80G were the same payments disallowed as CSR expenses in the computation of income. Referring to Explanation 2 to section 37(1), the AO held that since CSR expenditure is not allowable as a business expense, it also cannot qualify as a 'voluntary donation under section 8oG.The

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur vs. Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(g)Section 37Section 37(1)

without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had claimed wrong expenses during the year under consideration in contravention to explanation 2 of section 37(1) of the act to increase business loss and carried forward such increased business loss for the purpose of set off with the income

The Mahil Gailan Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Mahil Gailan, Sbs Nagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 106/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(VA)Section 37(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

being employees share of provident fund u/s 36(1)(VA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which otherwise was deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a direct charge/ expenditure in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee. 3. The appellant craves

Gayatri Energy Ventures Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

phrase "for the purpose of business" The expression "for the purpose of business" occurs in Section 36(1)(iii) and also in Section 37(1). A similar expression with different wording also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads as "for the purpose of making or earning income". This issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

claim additional deduction or exemption or made a fresh claim for deduction, by filing a revised computation and claiming deduction under section 37(1)?" 7.11 The Hon'ble High Court is noted to have answered the above question in favour of the assessee, by holding as under:- "8. In fact

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

registered trusts. According to the PCIT, this amounted to an indirect claim of CSR expenditure, which is prohibited by Explanation 2 to section 37(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 2014. The PCIT noted that the nature and motive of CSR under the Companies Act is application of income ... eligible portion (50%) in accordance with law. It was contended that such deduction is governed by section 80G, which operates independently of section 37(1), and cannot be denied merely because the amount forms part of the assessee’s CSR expenditure. The AR further submitted that the assessee

Ttec India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Rs.12,40,664/-, which according to the PCIT was not allowable, as CSR expenditure is not voluntary and is excluded under section 37(1), and hence cannot qualify under section 80G either ii. That the assessee claimed tax relief of Rs.8,02,50,535/- on foreign income of Rs.31.88 crore ... placed reliance on the same. 8. The AR submitted that CSR expenditure had already been disallowed in the computation of income under section 37(1), and only that portion of the donation, which was eligible under section 80G, supported by receipts and made to approved institutions, was claimed as deduction

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member