What is Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For an expenditure to be deductible under Section 37(1), its object or motive must be solely for promoting the business. Donations made for the smooth functioning or commercial expediency of the business can also be allowable.

How many judgments cite Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT (166 ITR 836), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37, Section 143(3), Section 80IC, Section 143(2), Section 271(1)(c), Section 274.

Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT (166 ITR 836)

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBBALLI vs. HUBLI SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD., DHARWAD

In the result the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer are allowed as indicated above

ITA 554/BANG/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Hubli Scan Centre Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, 6-13 Lgf, Eureka Junction, Circle-1 & Tps, Travelers Bungalow Road Vs. Hubballi Dharwad - 580029 Pan: Aaach9520M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Hubli Scan Centre Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., of Income Tax, 6-13 LGF, Eureka Junction, Circle-1 & TPS, Travelers Bungalow Road Vs. Hubballi Dharwad - 580029 PAN: AAACH9520M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, Advocate : Shri Balusamy N - JCIT Revenue by Date of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 554/Bang/2025 is filed by Dep…

ACIT CIR-10(1) NEW DELHI , ITO C.R BUILDING vs. H M HENNES AND MAURITZ RETAIL PVT. LTD., DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2016/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. M/S. H & M Hennes & Mauritz Circle-10(1), Retial Pvt. Ltd, A Wing, D-3, 2Nd Floor, District New Delhi Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadch3567M Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Shri Yishu Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Vs. M/s. H & M Hennes & Mauritz Circle-10(1), Retial Pvt. Ltd, A Wing, D-3, 2nd Floor, District New Delhi Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCH3567M Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Shri Yishu Goel, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 04/06/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in ITA No.2016/Del/2024 for AY 2016-17, arises out of 1. the order of the…

J.K. JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

…is received. Disallowance on notional basis deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (i) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (ii) LM Thaper Vs. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 577. (ii) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd Vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836. The employees of today may become the ex- employees tomorrow. Any expenditure laid out or expended for their benefit, if it satisfies the other 16 J. K. Jewellers vs. ACIT requirements, must be allowed as deduction under s. 37(1). The fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefited or incidentally taken advantage of by the provis…

R ARUNACHALAM P C P P LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40ASection 40aSection 68

…long drawn process and cannot be decided only based on the nomenclature of the expenses. The learned AO ought to have appreciated that donation paid for the purpose of smooth functioning of business is allowable as held in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. V. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836 Kar. f. The learned AO, while disallowing the expenses under section 40A (3), failed to apply their mind, since they failed to recognize that some of the payments disallowed were not at all claimed as expenses, while other payments were not made to single person but to different persons and accounted under one head. g. The learned assessing offic…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…reference to the object or motive of the act 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 Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not con…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…reference to the object or motive of the act 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 Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not con…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…reference to the object or motive of the act 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 Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not con…

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…of expenditure in carrying business activities. Reliance is this regard is placed on decisions of the Hon'ble Courts: i. CIT vs Birla Cotton Spinning & weaving Mills Limited/Birla Bros. (P) Limited (1971) 82 UTR 166 (SC); ii. Mysore Kirloskar Limited vs CIT 166 ITR 836 (Kerala) iii. ) SRMT Limited vs Dy. CIT(2005) 97 TTJ 580 Visakhapatnam Tribunal 4. In the grounds itself it is stated that various Hon'ble Appellate Tribunals including jurisdictional ITAT Amritsar Bench have already held that the said disallowances/additions as made u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, would be applicable from Asst…

JAI AMBEY WINES,AJMER vs. ITO, WD1(2), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 328/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Jai Ambey Wines cuke The ITO Vs. C/o R.L. Mantri Ward 1(2) Chitrakut Colony, Chourasiyawas Road Ajmer Vaishali, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGFJ 7681 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sunil Porwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokb…

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 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

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 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

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 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

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

…y' has reference to the object or motive of 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’…

PBS OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pbs Oil Industries Limited Plot No.1, Arjuni Industrial Area, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493773 Pan : Aabcp3646B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ing through one of us (i.e. the Accountant Member) and in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT [(2005) 96 ITD 186 (Bom)], as follows: 7. We find that as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 836 1, while ‘the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(1) and 80G are quite different’, ‘but nonetheless the two sections are not mutually exclusive’. Thus, there are overlapping areas between the donations given by the assessee and the business expenditure incurred by the assessee. In other words, there can be certain amounts, though in the n…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BOVING FOURESS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…a conclusion, the IT authorities have failed to keep in view the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sasson J David & Co; Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836 (Kar). 6.5 For the assessment year 2005-06, the assessment order has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27/12/2007 wherein we find there is no disallowance of commission payments. The principle of res judicata does not have application to income tax proceedings and each assessment year is separate and has to be indepe…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FOURESS PVT. LTD.,, HOSAKOTE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 848/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…a conclusion, the IT authorities have failed to keep in view the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sasson J David & Co; Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836 (Kar). 6.5 For the assessment year 2005-06, the assessment order has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27/12/2007 wherein we find there is no disallowance of commission payments. The principle of res judicata does not have application to income tax proceedings and each assessment year is separate and has to be indepe…

Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT

What is Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBBALLI vs. HUBLI SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD., DHARWAD

ACIT CIR-10(1) NEW DELHI , ITO C.R BUILDING vs. H M HENNES AND MAURITZ RETAIL PVT. LTD., DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET,

J.K. JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

R ARUNACHALAM P C P P LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

JAI AMBEY WINES,AJMER vs. ITO, WD1(2), AJMER

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

PBS OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BOVING FOURESS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FOURESS PVT. LTD.,, HOSAKOTE