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

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1366/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1365/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1364/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Coastal Energy Private Limited (Under Official Liquidator), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1363/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Puttegowda Ravikumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1776/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 37Section 69