“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)

Integrated Fire Protection Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1451/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘C’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

ITA 505/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

claim is receivable, he is entitled to claim the said amount incurred as expenditure in implementing the contract as a set off under Section 37(1) read with 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31. Insofar as the abandoned feature films are considered, a Division Bench of this Court

Bueno Insta Pizza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4280/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle 78/9, 2Nd Floor, 6(1)(2) Krishna Vihar, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. R. A. Kidwal Road, Mumbai- 400020. Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan: Aagcb3987J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karna ThakerFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. A.R

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

ITA 1694/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

2 PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These are cross appeals by the revenue and assessee both are directed against the order

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263

1,18,50,389/- was reduced by the assessee from the taxable income. However, the same is not allowable as per provision of section 37(1) of the Act, being an expenditure in the nature of capital in nature. She also noticed that assessee debited expenses under the head rates ... taxable income on account of "Syndication Fees for Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares(CCPS) issue". The same is not allowable as per provisions of section 37(1) of the Act which states as follows- "any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

Nehasach Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3707/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3707/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Nehasach Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 245-246, 1St Floor, Jarodha Ward-18(1), Dairy, Sant Nagar, Village Burari, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110084 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcn1557F Assessee By : Sh. Vijay Singhla, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 27.01.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060166113(1) In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

also noted that mere statements claiming that the expenses were for negotiating business deals are insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 37(1). The CIT(A) observed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the assessee engaged in negotiations or entered into contracts with specific entities during ... which introduced a personal element into the travel expenses. The AR agreed to a reasonable disallowance in light of this fact. 7.2. Under Section 37(1) of the Act, only those expenses that are incurred "wholly and exclusively" for business purposes are allowable. The onus is on the assessee

Wissen Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1082/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

appeal no. 13 and 14 is regarding an addition of Rs. 28,32,000/- made by the Ld. AO by invoking provisions of section 37(1) of the act. The Ld. AO has :- 13 -: discussed the issue in para 5 (iii) of his order. It was noted that the provisions

Mohalla Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4123/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohalla Tech Private Limited Acit, Circle – 7(2)(2), Mumbai No. 2, 26, 27 & 3, Sona Towers, 1St Floor, Krishna Nagar Industrial Vs Area, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore- 560029. Pan: Aajcm 5415 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayanan (Hybrid)For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

case and in law, the learned NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act without providing any cogent reasoning and without taking into consideration any submissions filed by the Appellant, by merely making false statements/allegations ... order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard in spite- of specific request being made. 2. Ground No. 2-Unsustainable disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act 21 That the learned NFAC has further erred both in facts and in law, in concluding that the impugned expenditure

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature of expenditure prescribed ... personal expenses of the assessee. Thus, in view of such mandate of law, the deduction of expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38