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, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Albert David Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1305/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-10(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………………................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. Albert David Ltd....…………………………………………………….........................Respondent 15, Chittranjan Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan: Aacca 3933 D] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 29.03.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 85,34,346/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Additional Depreciation Of Moulds. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pharmaceutical Products. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,54,94,310/-. Thereafter A Revised Return Was Filed By The Assessee On 26.03.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,86,54,770/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 37(1)