Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37, Section 37(1), Section 80IC, Section 115BBE, Section 131, Section 133A.

CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar)

Q: How many judgments cite CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar)?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar) (122 ITR 839), spanning 2017 to 2025.

122 ITR 839High Court1980#4127 most cited

What is CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar) authority for?

Expenditure must be solely for promoting business to qualify for deduction under Section 37. The assessee bears the burden to prove expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT Vs T.S. HajeeMoosa & Co. · Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT · section 37 · expenditure wholly and exclusively for business · business expediency · proximate nexus

Sections most often in play

Section 37 Section 37(1)Section 80IC Section 115BBE Section 131 Section 133A Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 115be proximate nexus section 153a proceedings explanation to section 37 section 158bd prohibited by law going concern business expediency section 91 initial assessment year section 30

Judgments citing CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT(Kar)

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Mad) 153 ITR 422; Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs CIT(Kar) 166 ITR 836; Siddho Mal & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ascent Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6719/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)

…xpenditure has to be from the point of view business, but such point of view whatever to be prudent reasonable point of view which is free from a apportioned text of callousness and colorable discretion. Reliance is placed on SiddhoMal & sons Vs. CIT ' (1980) 122 ITR 839. 4.4. In view of the above discussions and the case laws quoted it is held that the expenses claimed but not reflected in bank statements are not said to be genuine and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Therefore the details of expenses not furnished by the assessee is not allowable u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act. 4.5. Henc…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction. CIT Vs. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. (Mad.) 153 ITR 422) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs CIT (Kar) 166 ITR 836 Siddho Mal & Sons Vs. ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that payments sent abroad are not for business consideration and not related to business. It is not proved by assessee that any services were done by these companies for assessee either directly or indirectly in Ukrain. It is not revenue's case that sales are bogus or paym…

Raj Kumar Baid, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 853/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

…ceptance of payment & work by the payees the expenditure is not only genuine but has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. Ld A.O. relied upon certain case laws which are different on facts. The facts of the case of Siddho Mai & Sons V/s ITO 122 ITR 839 are different from the facts of the case of assessee. In this case commission was paid to minor sons for taking deposits from them only. Likewise the facts of the case of CIT V/s Premier Breweries Ltd 279 ITR 51 (Kerala) are also different from the facts of the case of assessee as in the case of assessee all the payees of commission has accepted…

Mahesh Chand Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1841/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Mahesh Chand Jain Vs. Ito, C/O, Jagdish Chand & Co., Ward-53(5) H-20, Lgf, Green Park New Delhi (Main), New Delhi]

For Appellant: Sh. Satyan Sethi, Sh. ArtaFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 45Section 50C

…is the AR contends that the mere relationship without anything more is no ground to say that rent is r at a commercial rent for the same is understated because of relationship . Reliance was made on the case of Delhi High Court in Siddho Mai and Sons. Vs. ITO 122 ITR 839(Del.) (ii) The AR had also challenged the very valuation of the AVO on the following grounds: a) The value of structure (factory) at Rs.11,23,600/- is not proper as no reduction towards depreciation for a 5 year old building has been given bv the AVO. b) The adoption of circle rate to the impugned property is also not correct since the sweeping…

Arsh Iron & Steel Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…The case decisions cited by Assessing Officer in paragraph5.45, 5.46 and 5.47 applies here squarely and the same is repeated here:- “CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1974) 82 ITR 540 (SC) Sumati Dayala vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) Sickhomal & Sons vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 839, 844 (Del) Amritlal & Co. P Ltd. vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 719 (Bom) Travancore Titanum Product Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 277 CIT vs. Indian Cements Ltd. (1975) 98 ITR 69 (Mad) Swadesh Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC) Lachminaryan Madan Lal vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 739 (SC) WT Suren & Co. P. LTd. vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 602 (Bom) CIT vs. Centr…