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)

Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 216/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.216/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Odisha Power Generation Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar, 7Th Corporation Ltd., Floor, Fortune Tower, Bhubaneswar- 751023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1759 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dillip Ku. Mohanty & Shri Bhagaban Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Company Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit, Bhubaneswar, Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 & Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Notice Issued By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (Cit) Under Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 196L (The Act) Are Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Learned Cit Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Cancelled.. 3. For That The Cit Has Erred In Invoking His Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Pre-Conditions Necessary For Assumption Of Such Jurisdiction & Therefore The Order U/S. 263 Are Liable To Be Set Aside Only On This Ground. 4. For That The Finding Of The Cit In The Order U /S. 263 In Respect Of The Two Issues/ Grounds Are Nothing But A Direction To The Ld. A.O. For Substituting His Own Opinion With That Of The Assessing Officer Or For Making A Fishing & Roving Enquiry Are Not A Case Of Erroneous Order & Nevertheless, It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Ku. MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Dr. Sheila Rohatgi, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.22(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on Ground No

ITA 2441/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2441/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dr. Sheila Rohatgi Vs. Ito, Ward-22(1), Kolkata. Getashree, Block-H, 12, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700 053. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpr 9919G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Mojoj Dutta & Shri Sudip Kr. Roy, Advocate. राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Kolkata, In Appeal No.216/Cit(A)-6/Kol/13-14, Dated 09.11.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.03.2013. 2.The Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Medical Practitioner (Plastic Surgeon). During The A.Y 2009-10, She Ran A Clinic Named Calcutta Aesthetic Surgery Clinic At 34/1M Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata. She Also Attached To B. P. Poddar Hospital & Health Point & Performed Operation There As Per Requirement Of The Nursing Homes. A Survey

For Appellant: Shri Mojoj Dutta & Shri Sudip KrFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 148