Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT

166 ITR 836High Court1987#1875 most cited

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.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37 · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · wholly and exclusively · commercial expediency · motive for expenditure · object of expenditure · allowable donation · smooth business functioning

Also reported as

30 Taxmann 467

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 143(3)Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 153a proceedingsexplanation to section 37section 158bdsection 92fbusiness expediencygoing concernprohibited by lawsection 30section 194hsection 80ibcommercial expediency

Judgments citing Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT

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 847/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

M/S B. Fouress Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 846/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…

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

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

ITA 6435/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6435/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17) Addl.CIT, Special Range 4, vs. Garg Acrylics Ltd., New Delhi. A-50/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110 052. (PAN : AAACG3332N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date of Order : 08.07.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-35, New Delh…

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 37

…e in the nature of business expense are a part of the bye laws of the appellant. The same being in the nature of business deserves to be allowed in full. We wish to rely on the judgment of the jurisdictional high, court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar V/s CIT 166 ITR 836 and CIT v/s International Instruments Pvt Ltd 144 ITR 936. 4. The learned authorities below, erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 81,583/- being the amounts contributed towards Co-Operative Education Fund to be contributed to the federation which is a compulsory contribution to be made as per the statute. The learned authorities below failed to appr…

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…12 ITA No.s 858/M/2011 & Ors. in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Krishan Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 577(Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs CIT(1987) 166 ITR 836 (Karn.). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that contribution was made in the form of voluntary donation and not as an expenditure for availing services of training for employees and therefore not in the nature of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

…e Accountant Member) and in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Dy. CIT [2005] 96 ITD 186/[2004] 141 Taxman 33 (Mum.) (Mag.), 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, 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 nat…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…e Accountant Member) and in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Dy. CIT [2005] 96 ITD 186/[2004] 141 Taxman 33 (Mum.) (Mag.), 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, 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 nat…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…e Accountant Member) and in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Dy. CIT [2005] 96 ITD 186/[2004] 141 Taxman 33 (Mum.) (Mag.), 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, 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 nat…

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

…. v. DCIT reported in (2014) 42 taxmann.com 168 similar issue arose on identical facts like that of assessee. This Tribunal relied on (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261/1 Taxman 485 (SC) and (ii) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 836/30 Taxman 467 (Kar.) The Tribunal held that the expenditure in question was wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and motivated its workforce and allowed the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Respectfully following the above view, we direct to grant deduction to assessee on ESPO expenses in accordance with law,…

M/S. Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37(1)

…(1) of the Act and the question is whether it should be considered as expenditure for the purpose of the business. For this purpose, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT, 166 ITR 836 (Karn) wherein it was held as under:- “6. Again, the words 'for the purpose of business' used in section 37(1) should not be limited to the meaning of 'earning profit alone'. Business expediency or commercial expediency may require providing facilities like schools, hospitals for the employees or their children or for the children of the ex- emp…

National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-6, Neww Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3819/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 37(1)

…o been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) by returning following findings:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while ‘the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

ITA/516/2016HC Karnataka05 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 57

…s covered in favour of the assessee. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'KARNTAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.275 OF 2015 DATED 01.03.2021 (KAR.), 'MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD. VS. CIT', (1987) 166 ITR 836 (KARNATAKA), 'SASSOON J. 7 DAVID AND CO.P. LTD. VS. CIT', (1979) 118 ITR 261, 'CIT VS. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD.', (1986) 157 ITR 762 (BOM.) 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether contribut…

M/S Microship Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmay Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Microchip Technology India The Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Plot No.149-B EPIP Phase Circle-4(1)(2), Industrial Area, Vs. Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 066. PAN – AABCM 9868 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmay Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 10-03-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14-06-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by ass…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) wherein it was observed as under:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) wherein it was observed as under:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

Rites Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 706/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri R.S .Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurmil Singh, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2Section 37

…been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) by returning following findings:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order dated

ITA/275/2015HC Karnataka01 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 27

…as been placed on decisions in 'MEHSANA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. VS. 7 CIT', (1993) 203 ITR 601 (GUJARAT), 'KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHAN LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 577 (BOMBAY), 'MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD. VS. CIT[', (1987) 166 ITR 836 (KARNATAKA), 'T.T.D. CO-OPERTIVE STORES LTD, (1998) 232 ITR 109 (AP), 'CIT VS. PANDAVAPURA SHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD', (1988) 14 ITR 457 (KARNATAKA), 'SASSOON J. DAVID AND CO.P.LTD VS. CIT', (1979) 118 ITR 261, 'CIT VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD', (2012) 349 ITR 582, 'KARJAN CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES GINNING ANDPRESSING SOCIETY VS.…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 6448/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37

…een decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) by returning following findings:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Rites Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 6447/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37

…een decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 186 (Mum.) by returning following findings:- “It had been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987J 166 ITR 836/ 30 Taxman 467. that while 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(/) 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.…

Nalwa Steel Power Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 451/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…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: 19 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 nat…