CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co.

122 ITR 49Supreme Court of India1980#4126 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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.

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…he Ld. AR cited the following case laws: i) Delhi Tribunal in the case of P.S.B. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner reported in 35 ITD 9 (TM) (Delhi), ii) Instalment Supply P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del.), iii) CIT Vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC) 17. Taking note of the decisions as relied on above, we note that the assessee has taken on lease the factory premises situated at Haji Moosa Parawala Industrial Estate, 20, Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai - 400011. The lease agreement was entered for a period of thirteen years and was to expire on 31/03/2017. For the purpose of carrying out its bus…

Jt CIT (OSD) 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharti Investments and Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 3272/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Jt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Dharti Investments & Tax (Osd-6(2)(1), Holding Ltd., 1St Floor, Jai Centre R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Churchgate 34, P.D.Mello Road Mumbai – 400 020 Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Dharti Investments & Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Holding Ltd., Income Tax – 6(2) 1St Floor, Jai Centre Mumbai 34, P.D.Mello Road Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal Date Of Hearing 07/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2018

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Jt. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Dharti Investments and Tax (OSD-6(2)(1), Holding Ltd., 1st Floor, Jai Centre R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Churchgate 34, P.D.Mello Road Mumbai – 400 020 Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 PAN/GIR No. AACCD2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Dharti Investments and Vs. Additional Commissioner of Holding Ltd., Income Tax – 6(2) 1st Floor, Jai Centre Mumbai 34, P.D.Mello Road Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 PAN/GIR No. AACCD2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) Rev…

ITO, Ward-2(3), Durgapur, Kolkata vs. M/S Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

…t has to be directly to earn income thereby (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). ITA No.2266/Kol/2016 A.Y.2011-12 ITO Wd-2(3) Kol. Vs. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Page 14 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4970/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…1 after having taken over by the new management. Suspended period of 6 years was considered a temporary suspension of the business. 16. For a similar principle, on similar facts, learned AR relied upon the decision reported in M/s Kalyanji Mavji & Co.,(1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC) wherein it is held that the assessee is entitled to claim the business. 17. Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that in this matter, no sort of business was conducted by the assessee in the entire year as such it cannot be said that there is temporary suspension of business. He submitted that Dhumketu Builders & Developers Pvt. Lt…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…1 after having taken over by the new management. Suspended period of 6 years was considered a temporary suspension of the business. 16. For a similar principle, on similar facts, learned AR relied upon the decision reported in M/s Kalyanji Mavji & Co.,(1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC) wherein it is held that the assessee is entitled to claim the business. 17. Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that in this matter, no sort of business was conducted by the assessee in the entire year as such it cannot be said that there is temporary suspension of business. He submitted that Dhumketu Builders & Developers Pvt. Lt…

Reliance Lifestyle Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6797/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial replacement of equipment". This has been affirmed in Ashoka Hotels us. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 306,313 (Del) and Kalyanji Mauji & Co. V/s CIT (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC). In view of the above factual and legal position, the addition of Rs.1,05,89,163/ - made by the AO is confirmed.” 5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of revenue nature incurred during the year. The AR further submitted that the assessee has rightly claime…

Addl.CIT, Range - 7, Kolkata vs. OSD Coke Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1874/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

…during the year. It was argued that if renovation or replacement could not be considered as an allowable expenditure u/s. 31 it had to be considered u/s. 37(1) and in support of this reliance was placed on the decision in CIT. vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC). Reliance was also placed on recent decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajaram Mills P. Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 10 (Mad) and CIT Vs. T.V.S. Sewing Needles Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 13 (Mad). In both these cases the Hon'ble court has held that expenditure on replacement of independent complete machinery was a revenue expen…

ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata vs. OSD Coke Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/KOL/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

…during the year. It was argued that if renovation or replacement could not be considered as an allowable expenditure u/s. 31 it had to be considered u/s. 37(1) and in support of this reliance was placed on the decision in CIT. vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC). Reliance was also placed on recent decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajaram Mills P. Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 10 (Mad) and CIT Vs. T.V.S. Sewing Needles Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 13 (Mad). In both these cases the Hon'ble court has held that expenditure on replacement of independent complete machinery was a revenue expen…