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)

ACIT, Ltu-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1616/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Acit, Ltu-1, V/S. M/S Hindustan Copper 6Th Floor, Large Tax Ltd., Tamra Bhawan, Payer Unit, 180, Ashutosh Chowdhury Shantipally, Kolkata-107 Avenue, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aaach 7409 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata Dated 11.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 12.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Grounds Raised By Revenue Reads As Under:- “1(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That Club Subscription Fees Were Annual Subscriptions Including Renewal Of Corporate Club Member Fees Whereas The Club Subscription Fees Were Actually Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs.18,75,767/- & Were Never Claimed By Assessee In Earlier Years As Revenue Expenditure. (B) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That The Club Subscription Fees Were Revenue In Nature & Not Capital Expenditure Relying On The Decision Of Dcit Vs. Makers Development Services Ltd. [1994] 75 Taxman 125 (Bom).

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S the Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 994/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Dcit, Circle-1(2), V/S. M/S The Braithwaite Burn Aayakar Bhawan, Room & Jessop Construction Co. 14, 7Th Floor, P-7, Ltd. 27, R.N. Mukherjee Chowrnghee Square, Road, Kolkata-700 001 Kol-700 09 [Pan No.Aaact 9760 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata Dated 20.03.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.08.2006 For Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,74,43,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Prior Period Expenses In Respect Of Closing Stock Of Raw Materials & Work In Progress. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Modify The Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Proceedings Of This Case.”

Section 143(3)