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)

Procyon Offshore Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4951 & 4952/Mum/2012, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd. Acit, -5(1) Mumbai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Procycon Offshore Services P.Ltd.),Lic Bldg. Plot No.54, Vs. Sector-Ii,Cbd-Belapur-400 614. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम िधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर िधिनयम िधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 20/04/2012, Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Considering The Fact That The Issues Involved In Both The Cases Are Almost Identical, We Are Adjudicating Both Appeals By Single Order.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes & Assessed Incomes Etc., Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Dt. Assessed Cit(A) Order Dt. Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) 2004-05 25.10.2004 Nil 24.12.2009 1,05,47,180/- 20.04.2012 2005-06 28.10.2005 Nil 24.12.2009 95,910/- 20.04.2012

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 254(1)Section 37

Parle Agro P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/3343/Mum/2013िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year :2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cent Circle-25 Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor Western Express Highway Chakala, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 099. Mumbai-20. Pan:Aaacp 8416 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/3688/Mum/2013िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year :2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cent Circle-25 Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400 099. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)