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)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 235/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

Shri Shashikant Bhagvanjibhai Rajpara, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Descon Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1648/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1648/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Descon Ltd. Tax – Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs Plot No. X -1,2,3, Block-Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacd9410G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.56,07,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent & Connectivity Charges As Because The Assessee Follows The Mercantile Basis Of Accounting System & The Expenses Should Be Recorded As & When It Arises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,82,434/- Made By The Ao On Account Of The Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As Because It Violates The Provision Of Sec.36(1)(Va) Read With Sec 2(24)(X) Of The It Act & It Contradicts The Board'S Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015, Para No. 5 Where It Is Clarified That "This Circular Does Not Apply To Claim Of Deduction Relating To Employee'S Contribution To Welfare Fund Which Are Governed By Sec.36(1)(Va) Of The Act".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 68