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 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.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 153a proceedings explanation to section 37 section 158bd section 92f business expediency going concern prohibited by law section 30 section 194h section 80ib commercial expediency

Judgments citing Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…the appeal for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee following the orders for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.) • Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) • CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd.: 266 ITR 170(Mad) • CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd: T.C.(A).No.57 of 2006 (Chennai) • CIT vs Jayendrakumar Hiralal: 327 ITR 147 (Guj) • CIT vs. Karnataka Financial Corporation: 326 ITR 355 (Kar) •…

M/S Sjvn Ltd. ( Formerly Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited), Shimla vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

ITA 835/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR

Section 250(6)

…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 hold 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 80C 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…

M/S Sjvn Ltd. ( Formerly Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited), Shimla vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

ITA 834/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR

Section 250(6)

ACIT, Circle, Shimla vs. M/S Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Shimla

ITA 827/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR

Section 250(6)

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7176/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92D

…ng 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 nat…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…d: T.C.(A).No.57 of 2006, held that social and welfare community expenses are deductible as business expenditure. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Jayendrakumar Hiralal: 327 ITR 147. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar v. CIT: 166 ITR 836, held that the contribution made for common treatment of effluents was allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) observed that the expenditure incurred on account of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. is allowable even if the donation has no nexus with the business of the assessee and regardless of any business act…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Swamina International (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition as made by the AO by following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bata India Ltd. 201 ITR 884 and another judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT 166 ITR 836. Aggrieved, revenue is before us and assessee has filed cross objection in support of the order of Ld. CIT(A) . 5.2. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee claimed to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.6,01,193/- under the head ‘donation’ which was disallowed by t…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…or other extraneous considerations.” He further relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of T.S.Hajee Moosa & Co.(153 ITR 422) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd (166 ITR 836) and submitted that the expression “wholly and exclusively” used in sec. 37(1) of the Act have been explained to mean that the term “wholly” refers to the quantum of expenditure and “exclusively” refers to the motive or objective of expenditure. He submitted that the business loss claimed by the assessee are not incurred wholly and exclusively f…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…view, satisfy the test of being allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. We draw support for the aforesaid conclusion from the following decisions of the various Tribunals/High Courts : (i) In the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.), the assessee started school for education of children of its employees for attracting technocrats and men of managerial skill to its industry. Donations made by the company to the school were claimed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal sustained disallowance of the deduction claimed on the ground that the…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…view, satisfy the test of being allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. We draw support for the aforesaid conclusion from the following decisions of the various Tribunals/High Courts : (i) In the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.), the assessee started school for education of children of its employees for attracting technocrats and men of managerial skill to its industry. Donations made by the company to the school were claimed as business expenditure 110 under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal sustained disallowance of the deduction claimed on the ground that…

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

…eference 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 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…

Dy. C.I.T.1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Jspl, Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 210/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

Section 37Section 37(1)

…d his submissions on 10.12.2012, 30.04.2013 and 28.03.2014 and relied on the decisions of Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SECL, 85 ITD 608 (Nag.) and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1987) 166 ITR 836 (Kar) and submitted that the disallowance made by the AO should be deleted. 5. Thereafter the CIT(A) after considering the submissions filed by the AR of the assessee on the above dates, forwarded to the AO along with bills and vouchers for his report. The AO in his remand report submitted that though the claim of the assessee regarding corporate…

M/S. Tata Chemical Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT RG. 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5897/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas and Shri Atul T SuraiyaFor Respondent: Mrs Vidisha Kalra

Section 35E

…holly outside the ambit of the business concerns of the Assessee especially where the undertaking owned by the Assessee was one which was to some extent a polluting industry. 21.3 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT [166 ITR 836] held as under : “Held. (i) that the words-“for the purpose of the business" used in section 37(1)should not be limited to the meaning of "earning profit alone" Business expediency or commercial expediency might require providing facilities like schools, hospitals, etc., for the employees or their children or for the children of the ex-employees.…

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2736/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 35ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80MSection 86

…te that this issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year at 1989-90 in paras 7 to 10 as under: 7. We find that as held by Hon'ble Kamataka 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…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ture on construction of rain water harvesting system, on account of business / commercial expediency. In view of the same, the aforesaid expenditure satisfies the test of having been incurred for the purposes of business.[Refer: Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.); Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 349 of 484 261 ITR 501(Bom.); CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679; CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.)] In view of the…

Sri Asok Kumar Pal, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 647/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Bhattacharya, JCIT

…es in question were actually incurred for the education of children of the employees of the assessee. In this regard the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed before me the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs CIT 166 ITR 836 (Kar) wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court took a view that the expenses incurred for education of children of the employee was allowable as deduction. 22. After hearing the rival submissions I am of the view that it would be just and proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand to the AO for fresh consideration of the is…

Toshbro Medicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7064/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7064/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Toshbro Medicals Dcit – 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, V. 8 Mohatta Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct4483C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran,DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…his mark and there is no capital element in it. The assessee company submitted that the amount of Rs. 25 lacs has been paid keeping in view the business interest. In support the assessee company relied upon the decision in the case of Mysore Kirloskar v. CIT, 166 ITR 836. The assessee company submitted that by availing the right to use of the ‘Global Pagoda Mark’, the assessee company’s interest have been served very well and the products of the company have reached across to the people who have respect for Global Pagoda and Vipassana courses. It was submitted by the assessee company that many companies organized…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 940/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2003-04 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05 Dcit-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05

Section 260

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2003-04 DCIT-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6th Floor, Management Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 5A, 5th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. M.K.Road, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 PAN No.AAACK5576C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Assessment Year-2004-05 DCIT-3(2), Kotak Mahindra Asset Room No.608, 6th Floor, Management Co. Ltd.…

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Asset Mangagement Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A)-III, Mumbai

ITA 1416/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Section 260

Sri. Rajendra Tholpady, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 833/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 131

…e present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Even before us, the same contentions as were putforth before the revenue authorities were reiterated. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT, 166 ITR 836 (Kar) for the proposition that any expenditure incurred in promoting business is a permissible deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 11. We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and are unable to accept the same. The facts brought out by the AO in the order of assessment clearly show that Suresh Babu was not available fo…