CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co.

122 ITR 49Supreme Court of India1980#4181 most cited

What is CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. authority for?

Expenditure not covered by a specific provision for deduction should be allowed under the residuary clause if it is in the nature of revenue expenditure.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. · 122 ITR 49 · SC · revenue expenditure · business expenditure · residuary clause · section 10(2)(xv) · section 37(1) · allowable deduction · repairs · renovations · reconditioning

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

free trade zonestpi unitsection 80ia(8)section 28(i)section 10(2)(xv)foreign tax creditsection 10(2)section 10aacomputer softwaresection 40(a)(i)section 30section 10a

Judgments citing CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…ich doesn’t represent any contribution to fund) falls under the purview of section 37(1) of the Act and ought to be allowed as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), wherein it was held that if expenditure incurred by the assessee was not covered by the specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not app…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…ich doesn’t represent any contribution to fund) falls under the purview of section 37(1) of the Act and ought to be allowed as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), wherein it was held that if expenditure incurred by the assessee was not covered by the specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not app…

SHIV NADAR AND SANJAY KALRA ASSOCIATES LLP,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, we don to find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 890/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

…arges had not resulted in any acquisition of healthcare technology company and subsequent income therefrom and assessee was requested to show cause why the disallowance should not be made. The assessee furnished reply and relied on CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. 122 ITR 49, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT, 20 ITR 1, Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 submitted that same accounting principles were followed in the previous year and were allowed in 143(3) assessment order. The AO has incorporated the same in para 4.5 of his order and relying on submission of the assessee was examined by the AO and not accepte…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ich doesn‟t represent any contribution to fund) falls under the purview of section 37(1) of the Act and ought to be allowed as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), wherein it was held that if expenditure incurred by the assessee was not covered by the specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not app…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ich doesn‟t represent any contribution to fund) falls under the purview of section 37(1) of the Act and ought to be allowed as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), wherein it was held that if expenditure incurred by the assessee was not covered by the specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not app…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI vs. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 32Section 37(1)

…arrying it on. It was part of the cost of operating the profit earning apparatus and was clearly in the nature of revenue expenditure." Similarly, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider an identical issue in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49. In the case before the Apex Court, the assessee incurred the expenditure on payment of surface rent, minimum royalty and on account of salary for the watch and ward and claimed it as a business expenditure. The assessee has also incurred expenditure for renovating the building, reconditioning of machinery and clearing of debris. The assessee clai…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1849/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1848/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1557/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1532/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1531/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1530/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 613/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

INFOSYS LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 532/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

DY.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…use of repair the life of building was prolonged for at least 15 years and it could not be said that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. reported in 122 ITR 49, has held that, cost on repairs which are not current repairs can be allowed under section 37 (1). Section 30 and 31 are not a bar in this regard. In the present facts of the case, the Ld.AO has not identified any expenditure that has esulted in creation of a new asset. There is no basis for the to disallow adhoc 10% of the total expenditure incur…

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…either u/s. 30(a)(i) or under section 30(a)(ii) and section 31(i), the same may still be considered allowable u/s. 37. The above proposition has been held so by the Hon’ble Apex 10 I.T.A. No.715/Coch/2019 Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (122 ITR 49). Under section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under t…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…the purview of section 37(1) of the Act and ought to be allowed as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the 31 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 case of CIT vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 49 (SC), wherein it was held that if expenditure incurred by the assessee was not covered by the specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not app…

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2163/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 133Section 143(3)

…s a deduction under section 10(2) (xv), it is not necessary that the primary motive in incurring it has to be directly to earn income thereby (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kalyayanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC), has observed (on page 53) that on accepted commercial practice and trading principles n item of business expenditure must be deducted in order to arrive at the true figure of profits and gains for the tax purposes. It is thus within the province of the assessing officer to examine whether an item of expenditure was for genuine or not, it is…

MAHARASHTRA FILM STAGE CULTURAL DEVELOPEMENT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result the assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपऩल सं./I.T.A. No.1268/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. Maharashtra Film Stage बनधम/ Jt. Cit-16(1) Cultural Development Mumbai. Vs. Corporation Ltd. Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Film City, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 065. स्थधयऩ लेखध सं./Pan :Aaacm 7646 K (अपऩलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ I ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAMLAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं./I.T.A. No.1268/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/s. Maharashtra Film Stage बनधम/ Jt. CIT-16(1) Cultural Development Mumbai. Vs. Corporation Ltd. Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Film City, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 065. स्थधयऩ लेखध सं./PAN :AAACM 7646 K (अपऩलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपऩलधथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Mani Jain and Shri Prateek Jain प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh- DR सपनव…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2