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)

Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITTPA 21/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.It(Tp)A No.: 21/Chny/2023 धनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sutherland Global Services Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax, Gateway Office Parks, Central Circle 3(3), 2Nd Floor, Building B2, Chennai. No.16, G.S.T Road, Perungalathur, Chennai, – 600 063. [Pan: Aaecs-8093-A] प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.A., Mr. Harsh Bafna, C.A & Ms. Asmita Desouza, C.A. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2022-23/1048599548(1) Dated 10.01.2023 Of The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Years 2017-18 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Vide Order Dated 29.12.2022. 2. The Assessee Had Broadly Raised Grounds Of Appeal For 5 Transfer Pricing Issues & 1 Corporate Tax Issue. The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Submitted That, Subsequently, The Assessee Had Preferred Map Proceedings For Redressal Of Its Issues. Accordingly, In Consonance With The Relief Obtained Through Map Proceedings The Assessee Has Modified Its Grounds Of Appeal Through Its Letters Dated 08.04.2025 R.W.17.04.2025. Further, The Assessee Had Also Filed

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1600/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1600/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block A, 8Th Floor, Global Infocity Park Income Tax, No. 40, Mgr Salai, Perungudi, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacl6079R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.R. Raghunathan, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A) – 10, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Csr Expenses In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Raghunathan, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 30Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G