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)

Laxman S. Rapolu, Dombivali vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4574/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4574/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Laxman S. Rapolu Ito-15(2)(1), बनाम/ No. 8, Meadows Chs, Lodha Heave, Matru Mandir, Vs. Nilje, Dombivali (E), Thane 421 203 Nana Chowk, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahipr 0930 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ramulu Rapolu ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2015 Date Of Order : 10.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.3.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue In Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of The Assessee-Appellants’ Claim For Franchise Fees, Claimed To Be Paid In The Sum Of Rs.5,92,500/-, In The Computation Of His Business Income. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Data Entry, Claimed To Have Paid The Impugned Sum To One, Mr. Ravi Kumar, For Getting Business. It Was Explained By Him In The Assessment Proceedings (Vide Letter Dated 26.12.2011), That Though He Initially

For Appellant: Shri Ramulu RapoluFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Dani Shares & Stock P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2425/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2425/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2002-03) M/S Dani Shares & Stocks बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward 4(1)(2), Vs. 12, Oricon House, Aayakar Bhavan, 14, K Dubash Marg, M K Road, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcg1670N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Mrt.Anu K Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :3.12.2015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :3.12.2015 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran,Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 11.01.2012 Passed By Ld Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2002-03 In Respect Of The Following Two Issues:- (A) Disallowance Of 10% Of Foreign Travel Expenses (B) Disallowance Of Medical Expenses Incurred On The Father Of The Director. 2. We Heard The Parties & Perused The Record. The Assessee Company Is A Member Of Bse, Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading, Broking & Investments. The First Issue Relates To The Disallowance Made

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Mrt.Anu K Aggarwal