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)

M/S. Mkj Enterprises Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2516/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice P.P_ Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Lta. No. 2516/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Mkj Enterprises Limited,, Sugar Estate, Unit-1, 3Rd Floor, 2, Clive Ghat Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aabcm7727L] Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner 0F Income Tax,_ Circle-4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, For The Appellant Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy , Jcit, Sr. D.R,, For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing August 06, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order August 2020 Q Sef 01 0Rder Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Id. Commissioner 0F Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 12.10.2018. 2 _ The Common & Inter-Linked Issue Relating To Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Id. C(It(Appeals) Out 0F Sales Promotion Expenses Is Raised By The Assessee In Ground No. 1 & 2 , Which Read As Under:- "(1) That, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S.37 Of The Act Of Rs.1,80,000 / - Incurred On Supply Of Alcohol To Ireland Embassy Where The Director F The Company Was Honorary Member & Payment Of Rs.1,42,640/- Made To Taj Bengal, Both Debited Under The. Head Sales Promotion Expenses

Section 37Section 37(1)

Narbod Constructions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 926/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Narbod Constructions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 9, Tharapore Avenue, Harrington Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaacn1133C] Chennai 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 13.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relate (I) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Personal Expenses, (Ii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Road Repairs & Maintenance & (Iii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Professional Fee Besides Challenging Levy Of Interest Under Section 234 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Manek Metal (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4264/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4264/M/2017 & 4265/M/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ito-4(2)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Manek Metal (I) P. Ltd. Room No.647, 6Th Floor, 262, K-1, Inside Mehta Vs. Estate, Thakur Dhwar, Main Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Khattar Gali-2 Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm8872A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Drop Singh Meena (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita. No.4264/M/2017:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 37(1)