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

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3629/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5Th Floor 201, Vastushilp Annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above Hdfc Bank, Gamadia Colony Rd. Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabct 2852 P Co.Sno./13&14/Mum/2017 वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 ) (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Dcit-5(3)(2) Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-Dr Assessee By: D.V. Lakhani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M. लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 22.10.2013 & 31.03.2015 Of The Cit(A),The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assesse Have Filed Appeals/Cross Objections For The Above Mentioned Two Years. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Software.

For Appellant: D.V. Lakhani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37

M/S. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3108/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3108/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5336/Mum/2008, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. Addl Cit,Range-3(2) (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.) Mumbai. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaci 0995 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3136/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit,Range-3(2) Vs. M/S.Icici Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.),Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia-Sr.Dr Assessee By: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari and Arju Goradia-Sr.DR
Section 254(1)Section 36