How many judgments cite E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

256 judgments on BharatTax cite E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 27), spanning 1992 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 36(1)(va), Section 48, Section 115JB.

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 27Supreme Court of India1954#326 most cited

What is E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.

256

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2026.

Also referred to as

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 26 ITR 27 · Supreme Court · real income principle · notional income · income accrual · right to receive income · section 48 · capital gains computation · timing of tax liability · mercantile system · section 145

Also reported as

1 SCR 313

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 48 Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receive section 145(2)mercantile system of accounting section 48 section 45 section 34 liable to tax book profits profits and gains of business or profession section 145 section 115j revenue expenditure

Judgments citing E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Vapi Circle., Vapi vs. Shri Anand Jayantilal Kharbhari, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपील./Ita No.231/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. Shri Anand Jayantilal Kharbhari, Vapi. 409, Tirupati Towrs, Gidc Char Rasta, Vapi- 396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajqpk7929K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Poonam Joshi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], In Appeal No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1028054664(1) Dated 24.09.2020, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue As Follows:

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…estion does not arise to tax notional rent. The tax should be imposed on real income. In the assessee`s case neither rent income has accrued nor received actually by the assessee. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 313 at 343 held as follows: “It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to re…

Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)

…ent relevant to the issue it reads: "accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him . . . .". What is chargeable to tax is income, which has accrued or arisen to a person. The concept of accrual was considered in E. D. Sassoon & Co. v. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) and it was held: "What is sought to be taxed must be income and it cannot be taxed unless it has arrived at a stage when it can be called income". In the present case no income whatsoever has arisen to the assessee and it was a mere book entry passed which was totally erroneously treated as income by the ld. AO. The concept of real income is…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…the accrual of the liability. The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee in the present case has the familiar ring of the argument which was advanced before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of F. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v, CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27. There too it was urged that the managing agency commission was relatable to the services rendered as managing agent and, therefore, for the period during which the transferor-managing agent rendered services as managing agent to the managed company, it became entitled to the managing agency commission for the aforementioned period and for the rema…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

M/S Star Realcon Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

ITA/31/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Section 38(3)(a)Section 42Section 59(2)

…larly, in the backdrop of Rule 89(5). In our view, this judgement does not shore up the case of the revenue. 22. Likewise, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1995) 1 SCR 313 has no application whatsoever. This was a case where the Supreme Court was called upon to rule as to who would bear the liability for tax qua managing agency commission earned for the “broken period”. The facts, as discernible from the judgement, show that E.D. Sassoon & Company were managing agents for many companies. While the managing agenc…

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

…ealt with by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the 43 M/s. Red Hat India Private Limited case of CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (197 Taxman 375) by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27, wherein the issue “whether the customer had paid entire fee in advance on which services remained due to be rendered in succeeding years, such receipts could not be considered as income accrued in the year of receipts”, has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court by returning the following findings: “Reading of the accounting standard makes it…

Modern Autotronix, New Delhi vs. Jt. CIT Range-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3974/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Modern Autotronix, Vs Jcit, B-11, Diwan Shree Apartment, Range-18, 30, Firozshah Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarfm8678B

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Birender Singh, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3974/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s Modern Autotronix, Vs JCIT, B-11, Diwan Shree Apartment, Range-18, 30, Firozshah Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AARFM8678B Assessee by : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, CA Revenue by : Sh. Birender Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 29.12.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: Heard the arguments of both the pa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary vs. Shri Vazhyiel House Narayanan Kutty Menon, Bellary

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

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Late Shri Vazhyel House of Income Tax, Narayanan Kutty Menon Central Circle 1(1), By L/Rs Bengaluru. Smt. Vijayalakshmi Menon Shri Urathe Krishna Prasad Smt. Febitha Kandan Kulangara Ms. Roshini Kulangara Urathe Ms. Meghna Kulangara Urathe Shri Pramod Menon Smt. Padma Vijayan Ms. Kangana Pramod Ms. Sanjana Pramod 6, 14th Ward, KHB Colony, Sandur. Bellary Dist. PAN: AGXPM 5124G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by :…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…s 4 and 5, the income is chargeable in the year in which it either accrues or is received as the case may be. The issue regarding accrual of income is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, wherein it has been held that income accrues when right to receive is acquired and such right can be said to have been acquired when an enforceable debt is created in favour of the assessee. A bare look at the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 244A reveals that as soon as any refund becomes due under any provisions of the Act, the assessee…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…necessary requirement under Section 5 of the Act, stands unsatisfied for recognising sale proceeds during year under consideration. A.5. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon following decisions: • ED.Sasoon & CO Ltd vs CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini reported in (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) • CIT vs Excel industries Ltd reported in (2013) 358 ITR 295 • Prakashan leasing Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 208 Taxmann 464 (Kar) A.6. Ld.Counsel also relied on CBDT Notification No.9949 (F.NO.132/7/95- TPL)/SO 69(E), Dated 25/01/1996, superseded by Notification No.32/2015 (F.…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

M/S Saraf Export Palace vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/268/2018HC Rajasthan19 Mar 2021

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…osition he relied upon the decision of the H P Mineral and industrial development Corporation versus Commissioner of income tax (2008) 302 ITR 120 (HP). He further relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in E D Sasson & CO Ltd versus CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27. He further stated that in the present case not only the income of ₹ 246.84 crore was ascertained but also accrued and received in assessment year 2015 – 16 itself. Hence, the same is taxable in assessment year 2015 – 16 only. 27. He further submitted that assessee has failed to explain if u/s 4 of the income tax act, option price income has accrue…

Jv of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Eliop, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 711/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jv Of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Eliop, Ward-4(2), B-141, Road No. 9D, Vki Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaaaj 5853 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Matter, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- Made By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On Contract Receipts Of Rs.14,87,10,667/- Arbitrarily. 1.1 That, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Upholding Addition By Completely Ignoring The Submission Made By Assessee & Evidences Adduced. The Addition Confirmed Are Solely Based On Conjectures & Surmises. Appellant Thus Prays That Such Addition Being Most Arbitrary, Unjust, Untenable & Bad In Law, Deserve To Be Deleted. 1.2. That, Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- By Disregarding The Submission Of Assessee That Entire

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

Section 133(6)

…xtent relevant to the issue it reads: "accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him . . . .". What is chargeable to tax is income, which has accrued or arisen to a person. The concept of accrual was considered in E. D. Sassoon & Co. v. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) and it was held: "What is sought to be taxed must be income and it cannot be taxed unless it has arrived at a stage when it can be called income". In the present case no income whatsoever has arisen to the appellant joint venture as the project was not executed by the assessee joint venture but was actually 10 ITA 711/JP/2019_ JV of Kiran Inf…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT

Section 145Section 28Section 5

…necessary requirement under Section 5 of the Act, stands unsatisfied for recognising sale proceeds during year under consideration. A.5. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon following decisions: • ED.Sasoon & CO Ltd vs CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini reported in (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) • CIT vs Excel industries Ltd reported in (2013) 358 ITR 295 • Prakashan leasing Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 208 Taxmann 464 (Kar) A.6. Ld.Counsel also relied on CBDT Notification No.9949 (F.NO.132/7/95-TPL)/SO 69(E), Dated 25/01/1996, superseded by Notification No.32/2015 (F.…

DCIT ( OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Safari Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4566/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 254o

…he amount which has accrued to the respondent-assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable. In fact as observed by the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 ‘It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assesee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There mu…

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

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…ed is the income for financial year 2010-11. 26.11 An amount cannot be said to accrue unless enforceable debt is created in favour of assessee. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27. Their Lordships at page 51 observed as under : “That the words „arising or accruing‟ are general words descriptive of a right to receive profits... If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him. Though it may be received later on it being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have…