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

M/S. Tellabs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92

…hased by the assessee and not owned by it and therefore it did not result in any creation/acquisition of any asset and the assessee did not become owner of any capital asset. He placed reliance upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of 166 ITR 836 wherein it was held that the expenditure incurred towards employees’ welfare is allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The DRP however confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. IT(TP)A No.1315/Bang/2010 M/s.Tellabs India Pt. Lt…