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)

Top Class Capital Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 4663/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : (2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Top Class Capital Dcit-1(3)(2), Markets (P.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual R.No. 540, M.K Road, V. Fund Building, Dr. D.N. Mumbai 400020 Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct5800G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4663/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 04.05.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Dcit-1(3)(2)/It-14/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

M/S Express Confectioners Pvt Ltd, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 73/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.73/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Express Confectioners Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ltd., C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 4056 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Jalan & Rajiv Ranjan, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Jharkhand, Dated 09.02.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10066/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That, The Ld. Cit(A) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs. 27,422/- Under The Head 'Club Subscription Expenses', Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Expense Was Incurred In 'Order To Entertain The Guests At A Comparatively Cheaper Rate. 2. For That, The Ld. Cit(A) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.2,30,355/- On Account Of 'Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets'.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jalan & Rajiv Ranjan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. Albert David Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. Albert David List P-7,Chowringhee 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacca 3933 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 30-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 06.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1338/Cit(A)-4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/15-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue Raises Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Allowing 30% Depreciation As Claimed By The Assessee Despite The Fact That The Claim Of The Assessee That It Was Manufacturing Iv Fluid Bottles & Disposable Syringe & Needles With The Help Of Plastics Moulds Identical With The Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Was Not Blocked By Any Materials Or Cogent Explanation? 2. Whether The Learned. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Technically Similar Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Were Also

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)