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)

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Bonai Industrial Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA no

ITA 1533/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shria. T. Varkey, J.M &Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1533/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacb 9156 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1532/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Feegrade & Company Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacf 6825 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd M/S. Feegrade& Company Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Feegrade & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA no

ITA 1532/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shria. T. Varkey, J.M &Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1533/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacb 9156 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1532/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Feegrade & Company Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacf 6825 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd M/S. Feegrade& Company Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

Jmc-Mske(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 593/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jmc – Mske (Jv), Vs. Ito, 2Nd Floor, “Msk”, Ward – 5(2)(3), Passport Officer To Panjra Pol Ahmedabad. Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380 015. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld Cit(A)-5, Ahmedabad Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Disallowing Bank Guarantee Expenses Of Rs.3,94,626/- U/S 37(1) Of The Act By Treating The Same As Capita In Nature.” 3. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,94,626/- U/S 37(1) Of The Act By Treating The Bank Guarantee Commission Expenses As Capital In Nature.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. D.R
Section 37(1)