← 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-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

record, we find that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, deleted the disallowance of interest on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS under Section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the interest paid on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS is not penal but compensatory in nature ... High Courts as cited supra, we do not find any merits in the claim of the assessee in seeking deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act in respect of interest on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS. Accordingly, the impugned order on this issue is set aside, and the disallowance

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

record, we find that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, deleted the disallowance of interest on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS under section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the interest paid on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS is not penal but compensatory in nature ... High Courts as cited supra, we do not find any merits in the claim of the assessee in seeking deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in respect of interest on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS. Accordingly, the impugned order on this issue is set aside, and the disallowance

Juniper Networks India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ms. Forum GudhkaFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 92C

account of payments made to Juniper Networks Inc (JNI) towards the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) under section 37(1) of the Act- 1. The assessee is a part of the Juniper Group. JNI had established Juniper Networks, Inc. 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ("ESPP") to provide the eligible employees

Dev Bhumi Dold Chain Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3163/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

land it is not deerned to have been incurred for the purpose of business in view of the explanation to Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. 4.3. In view of the observation of the auditors of the assessee company themselves, it is evident that the assessee company ... disallowed contribution to State Renewal Fund on the ground that it is an application of income and not the revenue expenses allowable under section 37(1). Appellant submitted that the contribution was made in view of the circular of State Government issued in October 1995 and the objective of this

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

land it is not deerned to have been incurred for the purpose of business in view of the explanation to Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. 4.3. In view of the observation of the auditors of the assessee company themselves, it is evident that the assessee company ... disallowed contribution to State Renewal Fund on the ground that it is an application of income and not the revenue expenses allowable under section 37(1). Appellant submitted that the contribution was made in view of the circular of State Government issued in October 1995 and the objective of this

Shefali Aggarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 240/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad vs. Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Gainsight Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 200/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 37(1)Section 438

your goodself to admit fresh claim of deduction towards Education cess and Secondary and higher education cess which is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) read with section 438 of the Act. 11, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that Education

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Pilot Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1081/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi vs. River Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 9446/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 9446/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Acit, Vs M/S River Builders Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), C-59, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr2730H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi’S In Case No. 10415/410/Cit(A)-7/Del/2018-19 Dated 06.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

deleting the addition made by the AO 2 River Builders Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- under section 37(1) without examining whether the payment to GDA was made before start up construction of the project or after completion of the project. 2. Whether ... impugned payment are admittedly not in dispute at all as the Revenue’s endeavour herein is to get same disallowed by quoting section 37(1) of the Act r.w. Explanation (1) thereto. It has further come on record that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed lower appellate discussion has already

Panama Petrochem Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

ITA 1715/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Panama Petrochem Limited Pcit-8 401, Aza House, 24 Turner Room No. 611 Road, Bandra West Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 050. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccp4358D Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, which is mandatory in nature as per the provisions of Companies Act. The Ld. PCIT quoted Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act which come into effect from 1.4.2015, says CSR expenditure incurred by the appellant cannot be allowed as business expenditure

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 4432/MUM/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriPorus Kaka A/w Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253

required to be mandatorily incurred by the assessee-company as per section 135 of the Companies Act are not entitled to deduction under section 37(1) for assessment year 2015-16 by virtue of the fetter placed by Explanation 2 to section 37(1), which was inserted by the Finance ... plain reading of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) shows that any expenditure incurred towards CSR activities as referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be allowed as 'business expenditure' and shall be deemed to have not been incurred for purpose of business. The embargo

DCIT 13(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Raj Arcades Homes Private Limited (Aafcr6616R), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195J

assessee. Expenses claimed by the assessee have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business falling within the provisions of Section 37(1) and are deductible. Assessee has discharged its onus of giving evidences in respect of expenses so incurred and claimed as deduction. Addition made

M/S Steel Strips Infrastructures Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 732 /Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Steel Strips Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-II Chandigarh SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS5077J प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A, Ms. Muska Garg, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hea

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muska Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

amount as irrecoverable and claimed it as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) or alternatively as a business loss under Section 37(1) read with Section 28 of the Act. It was stated that the advance was a business transaction and referenced various judicial precedents and CBDT Circular ... assessee was not engaged in money lending business, the amount was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence not allowable under Section 37(1). The AO distinguished the judicial precedents cited by the assessee as factually different and emphasized that mere assertions without corroborative evidence could not establish

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 142/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

without appreciating the fact that though the same was done as per RBI Guidelines, yet the same was not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. Answering the said question of law, the Hon’ble High Court had held that the aforesaid substantial questions

Vandana Infra Realty, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2417/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, FCA
Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Medall Scans and Labs Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1114/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 133ASection 139

medical practitioners is violations of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, being an expense prohibited by the law. Mr. Raju Venkatraman had also stated in his statement that he had offered ... brought to the knowledge of AR about the relevant Rules and Regulations of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) as well as section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee agreed to offer its income during the course of assessment proceedings but resultantly, in all the group cases