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

Shaw Bros (Wine) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1107/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shaw Bros (Wine) Pvt. Ltd...............................………………..............................Appellant 40, Moti Sil Street, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Aafcs 1122 H] D.C.I.T. , Kolkata...................………………………………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Chowringhee, 7Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri D.K. Mitra, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 06, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 1, Kolkata Dated 05.05.2015 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 4,17,072/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Commission Paid By The Asssesee Company To Its Directors. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Liquor. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 29.10.2005 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 52,82,270/-. As Noticed By The A.O. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Deduction Of Rs. 4,17,072/- Was Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Commission Paid To Each Of Its Eight Directors At The Flat Rate Of Rs. 52,184/-. Although A Copy Of The Board

Siddhesh Capital Market Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2517/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Amarjit Singh, J.M. आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 6532/Mum/2012,धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, P.Ltd,122, Maker Chamber Iii, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai. Pan: Aaccs4582N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2489/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Vs. Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2517/Mum/2015 धनधावरण र्र्व /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Siddhesh Capital Market Services, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Circle-3(3),Mumbai. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta स नर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2018 आयकर अधधधनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1) के अन्द्तगवत आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सदस्य,राजेन्द्र के अन सार -Per Rajendra,Am: Challenging The Orders Dated 26.06.2012 & 12.01.2015 Of Cit(A)-7 & Cit-8,Respectively, The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Two Assessment Years.As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicat- Ing Them Together. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance,Trading, Investment & Derivative Transaction In Shares & Securities. The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Date Assessed Income 09-10 22.09.2009 (-) Rs.81,01,51,079/- 30.11.2011 (-) Rs.80,82,06,669/- 10-11 21.09.2010 Rs. 48,14,034/- 11.02.2013 Rs. 49,72,360/-

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35Section 35D