Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya v. JCIT

418 ITR 410High Court2019#6674 most cited

What is Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya v. JCIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred towards constructing facilities for obtaining permits and licenses is a prudent business decision and constitutes a revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when the assessee's business involves dealing with government authorities.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya v. JCIT · 418 ITR 410 · Section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · business expediency · prudent business decision · permits · licenses · MOU · government authorities · iron ore business

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)(c)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 1961Section 8DSection 135Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(viia)(c)section 135csr expendituresection 36(1)(viii)infrastructure facilityeligible businesssection 41business expediencysection 37(1)revenue expendituredisallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya v. JCIT

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…m 21, where expenses on setting up a pace foundation were allowed under section 37(1) because they contributed to brand promotion. Similarly, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Infosys Technologies reported in 360 ITR 714 and Kanhaiyalal Dudharia reported in 418 ITR 410 had accepted expenses incurred for non-traditional branding and goodwill as allowable business expenditure. On this basis, the ld. AR argued that showcasing luxury cars with the Bren brand name clearly fell within the realm of legitimate business expenditure. 11.4 The ld. AR further pointed out that the cars were reported in the fixed asset sched…

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…m 21, where expenses on setting up a pace foundation were allowed under section 37(1) because they contributed to brand promotion. Similarly, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Infosys Technologies reported in 360 ITR 714 and Kanhaiyalal Dudharia reported in 418 ITR 410 had accepted expenses incurred for non-traditional branding and goodwill as allowable business expenditure. On this basis, the Id. AR argued that showcasing luxury cars with the Bren brand name clearly fell within the realm of legitimate business expenditure. 11.4 The Id. AR further pointed out that the cars were reported in the fixed asset sched…

Hudco Ltd. (Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 7218/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hudco Ltd. (Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6829/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2063/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3704/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3305/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

…2063/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] ITA No. 7218 & 6829/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2015-16] M/s Housing & Urban Dev. Corpn Ltd Vs.The Dy. C.I.T Circle – 11(2) 25.3. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- "29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, Kollam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 919/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…comotive Co. Ltd [2024] 165 taxmann.com 227 (Bom) ii) PCIT v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 409 (Kar) iii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 633 (Delhi Trib) iv) Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. JCIT [2019] 418 ITR 410 (Kar) v) Mecon Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 149 (Ranchi Trib) 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that the expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) cannot be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the act as it amounts to application of income. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…siness concerns of the assessee, especially where the undertaking owned by the assessee is one which is to some extent a polluting industry.” 7.4. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- “29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3261/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…siness concerns of the assessee, especially where the undertaking owned by the assessee is one which is to some extent a polluting industry.” 7.4. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya Vs. JCIT reported in 418 ITR 410 (Kar) had taken a similar view qua the issue in dispute before us. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:- “29. In the facts on hand, it requires to be noticed that assessee is carrying of business of iron ore and also trading in iron ore. Thus, day in and day out the assessee would be approaching the approp…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [2021] 121 taxmann.com 386 (Kol Trib.). ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 45 iv) NTPC-SAIL Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 409 (Del Trib.) v) Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. JCIT [2020] 418 ITR 410 (Kar) vi) PCIT v. Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation in ITA No.460/2017 & 458 to 461/2017 dated 17.3.2021. vii) Ashwathnarayana Singh & Co. v. ACIT, ITA No.522/Bang/2019 dated 1.2.2021. 21. The ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Wipro Ltd., 360 ITR 658 (…

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [2021] 121 taxmann.com 386 (Kol Trib.). ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 33 of 45 iv) NTPC-SAIL Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 409 (Del Trib.) v) Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v. JCIT [2020] 418 ITR 410 (Kar) vi) PCIT v. Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation in ITA No.460/2017 & 458 to 461/2017 dated 17.3.2021. vii) Ashwathnarayana Singh & Co. v. ACIT, ITA No.522/Bang/2019 dated 1.2.2021. 21. The ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Wipro Ltd., 360 ITR 658 (…

M/S the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., Sandur vs. JCIT, Bellary

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1517/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 37(1)

…unt paid as per the directions of District administration is related to the business carried on by the assessee and allowable as deduction as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Dudheria Vs. JCIT (2019) 418 ITR 410. The Ld. A.R. also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 17, wherein the money has been spent by the assessee for establishing drinking water facilities or for providing aid to the school meant for residents of the locality in which business is si…

M/S the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., Sandur vs. JCIT, Bellary

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 37(1)

…unt paid as per the directions of District administration is related to the business carried on by the assessee and allowable as deduction as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Dudheria Vs. JCIT (2019) 418 ITR 410. The Ld. A.R. also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 17, wherein the money has been spent by the assessee for establishing drinking water facilities or for providing aid to the school meant for residents of the locality in which business is si…

M/S the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., Sandur vs. JCIT, Bellary

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 37(1)

…unt paid as per the directions of District administration is related to the business carried on by the assessee and allowable as deduction as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Dudheria Vs. JCIT (2019) 418 ITR 410. The Ld. A.R. also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 17, wherein the money has been spent by the assessee for establishing drinking water facilities or for providing aid to the school meant for residents of the locality in which business is si…

Sri Hirehal Gaviappa Rangan Goud, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Hirehal Gaviappa Rangan Goud, Mine Owner, Hrg Enclaves, Opp. Leelavathi Nilayam, Tilak Nagar, Cantonment, Bellary-583 104 ….Appellant Pan Adwpg 8968L Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bellary. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

…ibution made to BATF is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act and relied on the judicial decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Dudheria Vs. JCIT & Another (2019) 418 ITR 410 (Kar), and CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 714 (Kar).Further, the earlier decision of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 349 ITR 588 (supra) was considered in the later Hon’ble High court decisions and prayed that the contribution to BATF has to be allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. 5. On the second disputed iss…

Kanhaiyalal Dudheriya v. JCIT (418 ITR 410) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax