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

Dr. Atul Kumar, Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (in-Situ), Circle-1 Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur vs. Santulal Khandelwal, Adityapur

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55,50,470/-. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 64/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur…....……….……………….……Appellant Jharkhand-831001 Vs. Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………....Respondent Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] C.O No.02, 03 & 04/Ran/2025 (Arising In I.T.A. Nos. 64, 68 & 79/Ran/2025) Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Santulal Khandelwal.…………………………………………………Cross-Objector Prop Sant Steel Debashish Kunj, Main Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Jharkhand-831013 [Pan: Acnpk3091L] Vs. Jcit (In-Situ), Circle-1, Jamshedpur ….…..….......………..…...…..Respondent Jharkhand-831001 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 16, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Above-Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of Separate Orders Dated 03.01.2025, 03.01.2025 & 24.01.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove

ITA 1051/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Dy Commissioner Ltd. Income Tax, Central North Level Crossing, Vs. Circle 5(4) Vile Parle (East), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra – 400057 Complex Bandra East, Maharashtra- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp0458D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri R. A. Dhyani – Cit Dr & Shri V. S. Mahajan – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Office Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. For A.Y. 2021–22, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By Cpc Under Section 154 Read With Section 143(1) Dated 18.10.2024. For A.Y. 2022–23, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Intimation Issued By Cpc Under Section 143(1) Dated 29.07.2023. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 154Section 154(3)Section 250

Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove

ITA 1050/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Dy Commissioner Ltd. Income Tax, Central North Level Crossing, Vs. Circle 5(4) Vile Parle (East), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra – 400057 Complex Bandra East, Maharashtra- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp0458D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri R. A. Dhyani – Cit Dr & Shri V. S. Mahajan – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Office Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. For A.Y. 2021–22, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By Cpc Under Section 154 Read With Section 143(1) Dated 18.10.2024. For A.Y. 2022–23, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Intimation Issued By Cpc Under Section 143(1) Dated 29.07.2023. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 154Section 154(3)Section 250