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

Mohata Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxi, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) Mohata Coal Company Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Hmp Building 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 8Th Floor, 110 Shanti Palli, 4, Fairlie Place Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 1775 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.19/Cc- Xxi/Cit(A)C-Ii/13-14, Dated 09.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 25.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Fabricated Metal & Structural Products, Filed Its E-Return Of Income On 24.09.2010 Showing Total Income Of Rs.9,99,292/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment Making Disallowance Of Rs.13,79,177/- Of Staff Welfare Expenses & Rs.5,59,225/- Of Travelling Expenses On Account Of Expenses Incurred By The Assessee For Higher Studies Of A Staff Of The Company.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

Ramchand K. Popley, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 908/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./908/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Ramchand K. Popley Dcit-13(1)(2) Mumbai. 188-A, Turner Road, Bandra (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 050. Pan:Aakpp 6952 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Arvind Kumar -Dr Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 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 लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 18/12/2015 Of The Cit (A)-21,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 28/09/2012,Declaring Total Income At Rs.47.50 Lakhs.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,On 13/02/2015, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.47,50,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar -DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36Section 94

Wilh Loesch India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 6761/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.6761/Mum/2014 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 वष" Wilh Loesch India Private Limited Dcit,Range-8(3) Town Centre, Unit No.202, Mumbai. 2Nd Floor, Marol, Opp. Mitsubishi Motors, Vs. Andheri (E),Mumbai-400 059. Pan:Aaacw 3303 R Revenue By: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappattanavar-Dr Assessee By: Shri Chetan Karia सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- Challenging The Orders Dated 07.08.2014 Of The Cit(A)- 15,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Providing Project & Freight Forwarding Business,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2009,Declaring Total Income At Rs.99.52Lakhs.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 12.04.2013, Determining Its Income At Rs.3.43 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappattanavar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)