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)

Vpc Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3495/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3495 & 3470/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vpc Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. No. 49, Bay View Towers, Third Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. No. 121, Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaccv3747N] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 25.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Common Ground Relates To Disallowance Of Foreign Travel Expenses. The Assessee Company Has Claimed An Expenditure Of ₹.9,33,034/- As Foreign Travel Expenses In The Assessment Year 2012-

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37(1)

Vpc Freight Fowarders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3495 & 3470/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vpc Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. No. 49, Bay View Towers, Third Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. No. 121, Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaccv3747N] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 25.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Common Ground Relates To Disallowance Of Foreign Travel Expenses. The Assessee Company Has Claimed An Expenditure Of ₹.9,33,034/- As Foreign Travel Expenses In The Assessment Year 2012-

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37(1)