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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co.?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (122 ITR 49), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 244A, Section 36(1)(vii).

CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (122 ITR 49)

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…