Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 of the 6,995 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

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.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Judgments on Section 37(1)

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 474/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.474/Chny/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S.Cognizant Technology Solutions Acit India Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(1), बनाम/ (Successor-In-Interest Of Erstwhile Cognizant Chennai. Technology Services Pvt.Ltd.) Vs. 5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam Old Mahabalipuram Road,Chennai-600 096. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-3312-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji(Advocate) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee, In The Captioned Appeal, Is Disallowance Made By Ld. Ao U/S 36(V)(A) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) For Late Payment Of Epf & Esi Contributions Aggregating To Rs.79.47 Lacs. The Default Has Been Tabulated By Ld. Ao In Opening Para Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Fact That There Is Default In Payment Under Respective Acts

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Hitesh Ramnikalal Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 65/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.65/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hitesh Ramniklal Mehta बिधम/ Ito-19(1)(5) 2, Keshav Niwas, 20 Matru Mandir, Room No. Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai- 215, Tardeo Mumbai- 400026. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaupm8724H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Mehta (Assessee In Person) Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.11.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing Provision Of Rs.13,63,255/- Viz, Commission Payable On Sale Of Rs.3,43,20,981/- (Shown As Outstanding Commission) Which Has Been Added In This Year; & In The Alterative, Since The Deduction Claimed Of Rs.13,63,255/- Didn’T Materialize, Assessee Has Written Off The Same, The Ibid Commission Was Offered To Tax In The Year Ay. 2015-16 As Income In P & L Account, So Pleads Deletion Of Addition. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Importing Scrap Metal From Foreign Country (Usa Etc.) & Selling The Same In India. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Claimed Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Mehta (Assessee in person)For Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta