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)

Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23 Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-4(3)(1), Shop No. 25, Patwa Chawl, Vs. 648, Aayakar Bhavan, Shaikh Menon Street, M.K. Road, Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan : Abfcs4174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dt. 30-07-2024 & Has Sustained The Addition Of Rs. 5,40,97,148/- U/S. 68 Of The Act & An Amount Of Rs. 18,84,08,811/- U/S. 37(1) Of The Act. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That There Was A Delay Of 67 Days In Filing The Appeal & In Absence Of Any Application Moved By The Assessee, Explaining The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68