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.

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 27)

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e same accrues. The concept of “income” and its accrual is judiciously well settled and reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions. In the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 27, the question was raised as to when the commission for managing agency linked with annual net profits of the managed company accrues or arises. After deliberating on the concept of “accrual of income” as a whole, the Supreme Court laid down that income must be held to accrue at the point of time when the assessee contributed to its accruing or aris…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e same accrues. The concept of “income” and its accrual is judiciously well settled and reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions. In the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 27, the question was raised as to when the commission for managing agency linked with annual net profits of the managed company accrues or arises. After deliberating on the concept of “accrual of income” as a whole, the Supreme Court laid down that income must be held to accrue at the point of time when the assessee contributed to its accruing or aris…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e same accrues. The concept of “income” and its accrual is judiciously well settled and reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions. In the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 27, the question was raised as to when the commission for managing agency linked with annual net profits of the managed company accrues or arises. After deliberating on the concept of “accrual of income” as a whole, the Supreme Court laid down that income must be held to accrue at the point of time when the assessee contributed to its accruing or aris…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e same accrues. The concept of “income” and its accrual is judiciously well settled and reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions. In the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 27, the question was raised as to when the commission for managing agency linked with annual net profits of the managed company accrues or arises. After deliberating on the concept of “accrual of income” as a whole, the Supreme Court laid down that income must be held to accrue at the point of time when the assessee contributed to its accruing or aris…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e same accrues. The concept of “income” and its accrual is judiciously well settled and reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions. In the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 27, the question was raised as to when the commission for managing agency linked with annual net profits of the managed company accrues or arises. After deliberating on the concept of “accrual of income” as a whole, the Supreme Court laid down that income must be held to accrue at the point of time when the assessee contributed to its accruing or aris…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, (P.) Ltd., Ward-1(3), New Delhi 5Th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-Ii, Sector- 45, Block-B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon Pan : Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv; Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca; & Mr. Ramit Katyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, (P.) Ltd., Ward-1(3), New Delhi 5th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-II, Sector- 45, Block-B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon PAN : AAACA5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv; Ms. Shaily Gupta, CA; and Mr. Ramit Katyal, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3208/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 42

…ng of a claim or bill did not create any legally enforceable right to receive the same. Hence, the mere claim by the assessee without any right to receive the amount could not be treated as the income of the assessee. 7.4.8 In E D Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 27) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that accrual of income for purposes of taxation does not depend on the question as to when the income becomes payable. It depends only on when a vested right to receive the income arises. The accrual is accordingly complete when the right to the remuneration becomes vested by the occurrence of all the events on which the…

Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3150/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ongc Videsh Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Building, Range-13, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ongc Videsh Ltd., 601, 6Th Floor, Kailash Circle 13(1), New Delhi Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate & Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 42

…ng of a claim or bill did not create any legally enforceable right to receive the same. Hence, the mere claim by the assessee without any right to receive the amount could not be treated as the income of the assessee. 7.4.8 In E D Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 27) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that accrual of income for purposes of taxation does not depend on the question as to when the income becomes payable. It depends only on when a vested right to receive the income arises. The accrual is accordingly complete when the right to the remuneration becomes vested by the occurrence of all the events on which the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…wherein it is held that use of mix system of accounting is prohibited. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 1964 AIR1653 ii) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp. 2 SCR 375 iii) S. D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 1 SCR 313 iv) Rogers Pyatt Shellack & Co. vs. Secretary of State (1929) ILR 52 Cal 1 v) CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd. 179 ITR 8 vi) CIT vs. Singari Bai 9. The Ld. AR submitted that due to adoption of AS 19, the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the as…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…wherein it is held that use of mix system of accounting is prohibited. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 1964 AIR1653 ii) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp. 2 SCR 375 iii) S. D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 1 SCR 313 iv) Rogers Pyatt Shellack & Co. vs. Secretary of State (1929) ILR 52 Cal 1 v) CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd. 179 ITR 8 vi) CIT vs. Singari Bai 9. The Ld. AR submitted that due to adoption of AS 19, the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the as…

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…njab & Haryana High Court and that litigation was settled vide order dated 19.11.2000 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27wherein it is held that if the assessee acquires a right to receive the income the said income has accrued to him. As till the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court assessee did not have right to receive that income and even though that amount was collected, it becomes a liability on the assessee towards the customers. The CIT (A) has further considered…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…njab & Haryana High Court and that litigation was settled vide order dated 19.11.2000 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27wherein it is held that if the assessee acquires a right to receive the income the said income has accrued to him. As till the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court assessee did not have right to receive that income and even though that amount was collected, it becomes a liability on the assessee towards the customers. The CIT (A) has further considered…

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

…ecessary orders approving the claim on 6.7.2009 , 29.1.2009 and 5.3.2009 (the relevant orders are at pages 603-604 of the PB – Vol 1 / pages 2817- 2818 of the PB – Vol 4), and therefore as per the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of E.D. Sasoon :26 ITR 27, Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. : 46 ITR 144 and Ashokbhai Chimanbhai : 56 ITR 42 , in absence of right to receive such income on account of SAD does not accrue in the relevant previous year. 24. The assessing officer, however, rejected the plea of the Assessee and held that (i) the assessee had right to receive the said income and had accounted the S…