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

Manish G. Dalamal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7414/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7414/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Manish G Dalamal, बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8, 2Nd Floor, Shiv Sadan, Tax 12(3), Vs. 1St Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, 131, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aahpd4805H अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Ms.Apurva R Shah प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :8.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.9.2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 23, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though There Are Four Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal But There Are Only Two Effective Grounds Viz Ground No.1 Relates Brokerage, Legal Expenses & Insurance Which Were Disallowed While Computing Annual Value Of Property Which Has Been Let Out & The Second Ground Is In Respect Of 2 7414/Mum/2013

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 24

Bayer Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 7978/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7978/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Ay.2006-07 M/S. Bayer Cropscience Limited Acit -10(3) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 076. Pan:Aaacb 9651 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri G.M. Doss Assessee By: S/Shri Paras Savla; Harsh Shah & Viraj Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 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, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 14/10/2010 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao),Passed U/S.143(3)R.W. S.144C(13)Of The Act, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Insecticides & Other Chemicals For Plant Protection,Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/11/2006, Declaring Income Of Rs. 51.18 Crores.During The Assessment Proceedings,The Ao Found That Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions (It.S) With Its Associated Enterprises(Aes).So,He Made A Reference To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)To Determine The Arm’S Length Price(Alp) Of Such Transactions. After Receiving The Order Of The Tpo,The Ao Sent The Draft Assessment Order To The Assessee, Who Challenged It Before The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp).The Drp Issue Directions To The Ao Wide Its Order Dated 28/09/2010.In Pursuance Of The Said Directions, The Ao Completed The Assessment, Determining The Income Of The Assessee Had Rs. 59.89 Crores. 2.First Ground Of Appeal Relates To Transfer Pricing (Tp)Adjustments Of Rs. 2.80 Crores.During The Tp Proceedings,The Tpo Found That The Assessee Had Entered Into The Following It.S With Its Aes:

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla; Harsh Shah & Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Star India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst.C.I.T.-Range 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1112/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1112/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Range-11(1) Star House, Opp. Dr. E’Moses Road Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. Pan:Aaacn 1335 Q आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1370 /Mum/2009,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 वष" Acit, Range-11(1) M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Marg,Mumbai-400 020. Star House, Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: S/Shri Porus Kaka & Divesh Chawla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 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, Am- Challenging The Order,Dtd.12/11/2008,Of Cit(A)-Xxxii,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao) Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Producing/ Procuring Television Programmes & Supplying Them To Overseas Media Companies.It Also Acts As An Agent For Advertisement Sales For Overseas Media Companies & Carries On Channel Subscription Business.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.10.2004,Declaring Total Income At Rs.42,79,81,700/-.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28/12/2006, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs.311.49 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Porus Kaka & Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 37Section 80H