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

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Cir.42, Murshidabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2581/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Cir.42, Murshidabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2580/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

Fl Smidth Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3423/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3423/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Vs. Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Company Circle – 2 (1), Chennai – 603 103. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacf4997N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri M. Rajan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai Dated 11.10.2019, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012–13. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit (A)’] Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 75,94,632 Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D.

Section 14A

Senbo Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 499/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 499/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Senbo Engineering Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata 87, Lenin Sarani Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aadcs6138B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Limited Company. Income Of Rs.2,53,38,150/- Declared In The Return Filed On 07/11/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed For Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The First Issue Dealt By The Ld. Assessing Officer Was Regarding Cessation Of Liability U/S 41 Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Noted That In The 3Cd Report, The Auditor Has Mentioned About The Application Of Section U/S 41(1) Of The Act For The Unpaid Liability Of Rs.47,19,644/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer Also Examined The Other Outstanding Liabilities & Noticed That Regarding Outstanding Credit Of Rs.1,13,76,781/-, Pertaining To Ten Parties, Assessee Failed To Provide Any Detail About The Transactions Carried Out With These Parties I.E.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41Section 41(1)

City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3083/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3083/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Lubricants Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 14, Thiruneermalai Road, Income Tax, Chrompet, Chennai 600 064. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcc3825H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4(I/C), Chennai, Dated 09.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 15.10.2010 Declaring Loss Of ₹.25,65,746/- Under Normal Provisions & Book Profits At ₹.33,47,141/-. The Return Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37