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

Indiana Textiles Mill, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.43 Kolk, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1432/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1432/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-2012) Indiana Textiles Mill, Vs. Acit, Circle-43, 10A, Madan Mohan Burman 3, Government Place(West), Street, Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafi 6173 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: Sh.Subash Agarwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Kolkata, Dated 15/03/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is A Manufacturer Of Hosiery Goods. He Submits That This Involves A Number Of Processes Like Knitting, Dying, Bleaching, Cutting, Stitching & Packing. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income 30/09/2011 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Declaring Income Of Rs.10,50,751/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment Under Section 143(3) On 27/03/2014 Computing The Total Income At Rs.43,74,484/-, Inter Alia, Making Additions For Undervaluation Of Closing Stock, Donations & Subscriptions, Travelling Expenses, Telephone & Conveyance Expenses Etc. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter Before The Ld. Cit(A) In Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Granted Part Relief. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us. 3. I Have Heard Sh. Subash Agarwal The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Sh. Sourav Kumar The Ld. Senior Dr On Behalf Of The Revenue. On A Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & A Perusal Of The Papers On Record & The Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Laws Cited, I Hold As Follows: 3.1 Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature.

For Appellant: Sh.Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Srs Pharmaceuticals P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 825/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./825/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7728/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./826/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Dy.Cit-2(3)(2) M/S. Srs Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. Room No.556, 5Th Floor, 601-605, 6Th Floor, Marathon Max Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Building No.2,Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mulund (W),Mumbai-400080 Pan:Aafcs 4633 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:29.03.2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 7/10/2014 & 16/9/2014,Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Ay.S. As The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical,So,We Are Disposing Them The Same By A Single Common Order.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Avant Grade Pharmaceuticals.The Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessment Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Date Assessed Income 2009-10 26/09/2009 Rs.4.11 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.5.18 Crores 2010-11 26/09/2010 Rs.6.04 Crores 23/03/2013 Rs.7.63 Crores 2011-12 26/09/2011 Rs.6.55 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.8.00 Crores

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 143Section 148