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

Babulal Khetawat, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-43, Kol, Kolkata

ITA 427/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.427/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Babulal Khetawat....……………...................................................……Appellant 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Afcpk7938N] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Of Rs.51,83,279/- Made By The A.O In Terms Of Section 57 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Disallowance Is Unjustified & Needs To Be Deleted. 2. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 37Section 57Section 73

Sarita Rathi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-37, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.415/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sarita Rathi………………………...................................................……Appellant Bloc-B, 336 Canal Street, Shree Bhumi Lake Town, Kolkata-700048. [Pan: Adspr6934R] Vs. Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer (‘The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)' Where An Appeal Is Fled Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)) Erred In Adding Without Referring The Submission On 10.03.2023”.

Section 250Section 37Section 68