Section 37 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 37 is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 of the 4,334 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 37

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
60 ITR 52 · 1966 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
271 ITR 401 · 2004 · Supreme Court
231
citing judgments

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

Judgments on Section 37

M/S.Sonarome Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1627/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sonarome Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.34, 35&36, Kiadb Income Tax, Industrial Area, Vs. Circle – 6(1)(2), Doddaballapur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 561 203. Pan : Aadcs 9267 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-6, Bengaluru, Dated 13.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Initially, The Assessee Raised As Many As 11 Grounds Of Appeal But Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal Containing 3 Grounds. These Grounds As Per The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Cit(A)") Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act To The Tune Of 9.69.257 As No Tax Was Deductible At Source Thereon To The Extent Of 9.30.746.52 Because The Said Sums Were Not Chargeable To Tax In India. While Tax Was In Fact Deducted On A Sum Amounting To X38.511. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of X1.75.069 On Account Of Bonus & Ex-Gratia Without Appreciating That No Deductions Were Claimed For These Sums Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. K. Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 40

M/S. R.B. Polymers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 456/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.456/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr3117R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 20.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1220/Cit(A)-2/14-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Invoking Section 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(Ii) Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Amounting To Rs.75614/- Pertaining To Its Exempt Income. Suffice To Say, We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Investments As On 31.03.2009 & 31.03.2010 Read Figures Of Rs.1,71,25,754/- & 1,93,49,912/- (Difference Of Rs.22,24,158/-) As Against Its Non-Interest Bearing Funds In The Nature Of Share Capital Along With Reserves & Surplus Of

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(2)(i)Section 37

DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterrises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)