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)

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito-3(1)(2) Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, 504, Raheja Centre, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 214, Free Press Journal Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 1836 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No.240/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.378/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Dhoot Industrial Finance Pvt. Ltd. Ito-3(1)(2) Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, 504, Raheja Centre, Vs. 214, Free Press Journal Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Narimanpoint, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 1836 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Vidhyadhar V. Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian : 18.03.2021 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-616/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 20.11.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Ito-3(1)(2), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V
Section 143(3)

ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi vs. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7884/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Central Circle – 27, Ltd., 309, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi - 110055 Plot No.13 Parmesh Corporate Tower Karkardooma Community Centre, New Delhi Pan No. Aabcl 1391 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: 1. “The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao U/S 37(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Acit Vs. Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 2 Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Estimated The Shares At A Very High Value Then The Books Value. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Valued The Shares At Discounted Cash Flow Method As Per Standardized Methodology Which Was Done By Ao. 3. That The Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 4. That The Appellant Carves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Forgo Any Gournd(S) Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 37(1)

Orissa Stevedors Limited, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/CTK/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.222/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2001-2002) M/S Orissa Stevedores Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Osl Tower, Link Road, Cuttack-753012 Pan No. : Aaaco 2100 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2016, Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack For The Assessment Year 2001-2002, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Order Passed By The Forum Below Is Devoid Of Merit Being Against Weight Of Evidence & As Such Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Forum Below Is Not Justified In Disallowing Datum Loss To The Tune Of Rs. 40,00,000/- Without Consideration The Nature Of Business, Fact & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Submission Made By The Appellant. Therefore, Disallowance On This Score Deserves To Be Deleted. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Submit Further Points If Any, At The Time Of Hearing. 2. From The Above Grounds Of Appeal, It Is Clear That The Assessee Has Challenged Only One Issue Relating To Datum Loss To The Tune Of 2 Rs.40,00,000/- Disallowed By The Ao, Which Was Debited Into The Profit

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 37(1)