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)

Saltwater Studio LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT. 30(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 10/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.10/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Saltwater Studio Llp बिधम/ Acit-30(2) 520, 5Th Floor, Kautilya 103, Corporate Corner, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G College, Malad (West)- Block, Bandra Kurla 400064. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 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 04.11.2022 For Ay. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Mitali Gopani Submitted That Even Though The Assessee Has Raised Ten (10) Grounds Of Appeal. The Assessee Before The Tribunal Is Only Pressing Two (2) Grounds I.E. Ground No. 3 & Ground No. 6 Which Reads As Under: - “3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal. 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Allowed The Deduction Of Interest Paid On Late Payment Of Service Tax Amounting To Rs.3,27,026/-.”

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Aiswarya Granites, Kollam vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

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

ITA 622/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aiswarya Granites, Egpvii/70, The Assistant Arkannor, Commissioner Of Elavummoodu, Vs. Income Tax, Kollam 691 533. National E- Assessment Centre, Pan No : Aapfa5874K Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Preset Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.3.2022 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner (Appeals) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Is Against-Facts & Law. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Payment Of Commercial Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) Should Have Appreciated That The Amount Paid Was A Statutory Levy Payable By All Crushers Installed In Stone Quarries Based On Their Installed Capacity. The Levy Was To Be Remitted On Quarterly Basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Concluding That The Amount Paid Is In The Nature Of A Compounding Fee For Any Offence Or Towards Aiswarya Granites, Kollam

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)