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 Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of Revenue i

ITA 122/CTK/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.115/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/S Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited, Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building, Bhoi Nagar, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751022 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2575 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.122/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Orissa Hydro Power Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building, Bhoi Nagar, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751022 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2575 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Sarita Mishra Kolhe, Cit-Dr : ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Adv. : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, Dated 01.01.2014 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of Revenue Filed In Ita

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of Revenue i

ITA 115/CTK/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.115/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/S Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited, Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building, Bhoi Nagar, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751022 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2575 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.122/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Orissa Hydro Power Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Building, Bhoi Nagar, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751022 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2575 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Sarita Mishra Kolhe, Cit-Dr : ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Adv. : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, Dated 01.01.2014 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of Revenue Filed In Ita

Standard Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

In the result, on this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1886/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1886/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Standard Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Pcit-3 59, The Arcade, 1St Floor, 612, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. World Trade Centre, Cuffe Road, Mumbai-400020. Parade Colaba, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs8888C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Dated 15/01/2018 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 15 January 2018 (Received On 25 January 2018) Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 (Referred To As Cit), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds: I. Validity Of Order Under Section 263

For Appellant: Mr. K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3927/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

Section 143(3)