CIT v. Kamal and Co.

203 ITR 1038High Court1993#13768 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)section 10(2)csr expenditure business expediency enduring benefit child commercial expediency revenue expenditure section 37(1)capital expenditure section 115jb section 28

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamal and Co.

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED (AS SUCESSOR TO MAHINDRA TWO WHEELERS LIMITED WHICH IN TURN IS SUCESSOR TO MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4964/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 28Section 37

…12) 102 taxmann.com 375 (Bombay) Relevant Principle: Expenditure incurred on 'Colour Idea Stores' as a part of its advertisement and sales promotion expenses accepted by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings. 8. CIT v. Kamal and Co. Citation: [1993] 203 ITR 1038 (Raj) Relevant Principle: Financial results can be achieved by proper publicity and advertisement and particularly in respect of an expenditure of which assessee is not the owner and which was with the object if improving sales and the image of the firm and the ITAT was justified in coming to 12 Mahindra And Mahindra Limited the conclusion that…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ps and protects the business interest of the assessee. “For the purpose of the business” used u/s 37(1) which is of wider import. Kindly refer Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC)/ 10 CTR 375 (SC). 3. Also, kindly refer CIT vs Kamal & Co. [1993] 203 ITR 1038 /113 CTR 353 (Raj.)(DPB 187 – 189). The impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full. 8.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below and justified the additions made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to upheld the addition/disallowance. 8.5 We have heard both the parties and peru…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

…xpenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Inter alia, the AO relied upon decision in CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) and distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee in CIT Vs. Kamal and Co. 203 ITR 1038(Raj.). 14. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, holding as under:- "6.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission made by the learned AR. The payments of '5 . 0 lacs is towards the building fund of FIMI i.e. Federation of Indian Mineral Industries. The payment cannot be said to be for the purpose of busine…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1654/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., [For & On Behalf Of The Joint Erstwhile Partnership Commissioner Of Firm M/S. Kumaraswamy Income Tax, Mineral Exports], Bellary Range, No. 58, Cunningham Vs. Bellary. Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052. Pan: Aabfk8539K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr(Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22/03/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Gulbarga For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-4, Bengaluru Dated 22/03/2018 & The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143 [3] Of The Act Dated 28/03/2014, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143Section 14ASection 234Section 37

…lso submitted that the expenditure may not have resulted in direct profit to the assessee but resulted in benefit to the assessee. This view is also supported by the finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of CIT Vs. Kamal & Company reported in 203 ITR 1038. It is also submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Development Trust Pvt. Ltd. reported in 198 ITR 766 also support the view that CSR expenses are allowable business expenditure. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sid…

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

…xpenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Inter alia, the AO relied upon decision in CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) and distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee in CIT Vs. Kamal and Co. 203 ITR 1038(Raj.). 14. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, holding as under:- "6.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submission made by the learned AR. The payments of '5.0 lacs is towards the building fund of FIMI i.e. Federation of Indian Mineral Industries. The payment cannot be said to be for the purpose of business…

M.S VIBHUTIGUDDA MINES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 2843/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.60/356-A, “Modi Bhavan” Of Income Tax, Hospet Road, Allipur, Circle – 1, ‘Aaykar Bhavan’ Bellary – 583 105. Staff Road, Fort, Pan : Aaacv 5851 D Bellary – 583 103. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.60/356-A, “Modi Bhavan” of Income Tax, Hospet Road, Allipur, Circle – 1, ‘Aaykar Bhavan’ Bellary – 583 105. Staff Road, Fort, PAN : AAACV 5851 D Bellary – 583 103. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT Date of hearing : 07.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant M…