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

Sunil Mohan Lahori, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5948/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5948/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Stay Application No. 91/Mum/2018 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 5948/Mum/2017] [नििाारण वषा /Assessment Year 2009-10] Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.Ar Revenue By : Aarju Garodia, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 28/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Trustee Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5670/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5669 & 5670/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5444/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. Ar’S Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 14/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 21 /02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Trustee Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5669/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5669 & 5670/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5444/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. Ar’S Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 14/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 21 /02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)4, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5444/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5669 & 5670/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5444/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Hdfc Trustee Company Ltd Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, H.T.Parekh Marg Ward 1(1)(4) 165-166, Backbay Reclamation R.No.531-A,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-7615-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. Ar’S Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 14/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 21 /02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi & Milin Thakare, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)