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 Sonepat Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Sonepat vs. ACIT, Sonepat Circle, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is treated as set aside to Assessing Officer for verification

ITA 4106/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4106/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Sonepat Urban Co- Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Operative Ltd., New Subzi Income-Tax, Sonepat Circle, Mandi, Sonepat-131001 Sonepat (Haryana) (Haryana) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaat0374M Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Dated 02.04.2018. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. In Invoking The Provision Of Section 14A Of The I.T. Act Even Though There Was No Exempt Income During The Year; 2. In Invoking The Provision Of Section 14A Of The I.T. Act Even Though There Was Never Any Diversion Of Interest Bearing Funds To Earn Any Exempt Income; 3. In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.17,50,358/- Under Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962; 4. In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.99,68,211/- On Account Of Loss On Diminution/Depreciation In The Value Of Investments/Securities Held For Trading.” 2 Sonepat Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Diminution In The Value Of Investments Of Trading:

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

Mangla Land Development Corporation, Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Baroda

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

ITA 1998/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1998/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mangla Land Development Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Circle-5, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 103, K.P. Shopping Center Race Course Circle, Karelibaugh, Baroda- 390018 Baroda- 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Fm6 241 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Vijay Ranjan, Ar Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/08/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 06/09/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Mahavir Prasad - Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Cab-3/78/2014-15 Dated 30.05.2016 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2013 & Assessee Has Taken Solely Ground That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming Impugned Disallowance Of Expenditure/Loss Of Rs. 27,57,500/- Made By The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Ranjan, AR
Section 37(1)Section 40