CIT v. S. Meyyappan

73 ITR 20High Court1969#18227 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28(v)Section 28Section 67(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencysection 28section 37(1)revenue expendituresection 36(1)section 37section 14asection 36salarytotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Meyyappan

Manasukh Velji Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1, Thane

In the result, ground no.1 is allowed

ITA 4960/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…section 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid to a manager by a partner for looking after his interest in the firm stands allowed by the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Meyyappan [1969] 73 ITR 20. Therefore absence of earning any interest income on capital from the firm is no bar to claim the interest paid on borrowings for the purpose of contributing capital to the firm by the assessee as deductible expenditure. In such an event there would be loss under the head"PGBP" subhead "interest, salary from the partnership firm" and the assessee i…

Ramesh Velji Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1, Thane

In the result, ground no.1 is allowed

ITA 4959/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…section 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid to a manager by a partner for looking after his interest in the firm stands allowed by the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Meyyappan [1969] 73 ITR 20. Therefore absence of earning any interest income on capital from the firm is no bar to claim the interest paid on borrowings for the purpose of contributing capital to the firm by the assessee as deductible expenditure. In such an event there would be loss under the head"PGBP" subhead "interest, salary from the partnership firm" and the assessee i…

Sachin Chandru Mirani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5014/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nagesh Bhimrao Pasale
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…section 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid to a manager by a partner for looking after his interest in the firm stands allowed by the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Meyyappan [1969] 73 ITR 20. Therefore absence of earning any interest income on capital from the firm is no bar to claim the interest paid on borrowings for the purpose of contributing capital to the firm by the assessee as deductible expenditure. In such an event there would be loss under the head"PGBP" subhead "interest, salary from the partnership firm" and the assessee i…

Sri. Narayanaswamy Krishna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 17/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Koushik M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 24Section 24n

…ection 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid to a manager by a partner for looking after his interest in the firm stands allowed by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. S. Meyyappan (1969) 73 ITR 20 (Mad). Therefore absence of earning any interest income on capital from the firm is no bar to claim the interest paid on borrowings for the purpose of contributing capital to the firm by the assessee as deductible expenditure. In such an event there would be loss under the head ”PGBP” subhead “interest, salary from the partnership firm” and the ass…

Suresh Sreeram, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel
Section 14ASection 28Section 37Section 70

…ection 37(1) will have to be allowed even if it does not fall within the ambit of section 67(3) of the Act. Salary paid to a manager by a partner for looking after his interest in the firm stands allowed by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. S. Meyyappan (1969) 73 ITR 20 (Mad). Therefore absence of earning any interest income on capital from the firm is no bar to claim the interest paid on borrowings for the purpose of contributing capital to the firm by the assessee as deductible expenditure. In such an event there would be loss under the head”PGBP” sub- head “interest, salary from the partnership firm” and the as…

CIT v. S. Meyyappan (73 ITR 20) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax