Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

98 ITR 50High Court1975#11899 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(iii)section 10previous yearpersoncompanyindiabusinessinterest

Judgments citing Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JHANDEWALAN vs. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ome, under s. 25 CO No. 36/Del/2024 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. 28(1) of the Act- CIT-Vs, Nainital Bank Ltd.(19.65) 55 ITR 707(SC), RamchandarShivnarayan v. CIT 1978 CTR(SC)5: (1978) 111 ITR 2&3(SC). Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(1975) 98 ITR 50(Bom), CIT vs. P.V. Gore & Co.(1982) 29 CTR(Bom) 110(1983) 143 ITR 922(Bom) and BadridasDaga vs. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 10(SC) relied on." 58. The cases followed by Bombay High Court have been mentioned herein above also. 59. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT reported in 111 IT…

METAL CLOSURES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 941/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 148Section 28Section 36(2)(i)

…a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Nainital Bank Ltd [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC) c) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sassoon J David & Co (P) Ltd v CIT [1 975] 98 ITR 50 (80M.) 3.5 For the above reasons, he submitted that the impugned additions made by the Ld. AO are liable to be deleted and do not stand the test of law. 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has raised ground before ld. CIT(A) that it should be bad debt allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. However, before the Tribunal assessee raise…

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…ee being a victim of such fraud would in fact be eligible to claim such sums a deductible bonafide business loss as highlighted in the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Baridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10 (SC) (ii) Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom.) (iii) CIT v. Parmanand Makhan Lal (1983) 15 Taxman 12 (Patna) (iv) Kothari & Sons v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 23 (Madras) (v) Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) (vi) Khaitan & Co. v. CIT (1979) 1 Taxman 280 (Calcutta) (vii) Churakulam Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 81 Taxman 214 (Kerala) (viii) CIT v. India United Mills Ltd.…

CENTRUM BROKING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4120/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Centrum Broking Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T., 4(1)(1) Centrum House, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Cst Road, Vidyanagari Marg, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. Pan/Gir No.Aabca 1498 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the documents filed by
Section 143(3)

…oney and writing off the balance. Thus we found that the aforesaid loss has incurred in the course of business of the company and therefore should be allowed as a business loss. Reliance is placed on following decisions: a. Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt Ltd. - 98 ITR 50 (Bom), b. BadridasDaga - 34 ITR 10 (SC). c. Harshad Choksi - 349 ITR 250 (Bom), d. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd - 3213/Mum/2009 (now known as M/s Nicholas Piramal Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd). 7. It was argued by the ld. AR that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD,, RAJAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nd without regard to commercial consideration or expediency. Hence, amount paid to directors and employees is allowable as a deduction.- Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 83 (Bom) : TC16R.331 and Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Born) partly reversed; Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551 (SC) : TC16R.1378 and CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) : TC16P.507 applied; CIT vs. Laxmi Cement Distributors P. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 338 : (1976) 104 ITR 7…

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAJAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nd without regard to commercial consideration or expediency. Hence, amount paid to directors and employees is allowable as a deduction.- Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 83 (Bom) : TC16R.331 and Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Born) partly reversed; Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551 (SC) : TC16R.1378 and CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) : TC16P.507 applied; CIT vs. Laxmi Cement Distributors P. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 338 : (1976) 104 ITR 7…

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD.,,RAJAM vs. THE ITO,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nd without regard to commercial consideration or expediency. Hence, amount paid to directors and employees is allowable as a deduction.- Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 83 (Bom) : TC16R.331 and Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Born) partly reversed; Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551 (SC) : TC16R.1378 and CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) : TC16P.507 applied; CIT vs. Laxmi Cement Distributors P. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 338 : (1976) 104 ITR 7…

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE MILLS PVT LTD,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nd without regard to commercial consideration or expediency. Hence, amount paid to directors and employees is allowable as a deduction.- Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 83 (Bom) : TC16R.331 and Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Born) partly reversed; Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551 (SC) : TC16R.1378 and CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) : TC16P.507 applied; CIT vs. Laxmi Cement Distributors P. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 338 : (1976) 104 ITR 7…

DCIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HALDYN GLASS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…ly in the case of G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 161 (Bom) relying on the decision of CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 FIR 707 (SC),Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC), Sassoon J. David Co, (P) Ltd.vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom), CIT vs.P.V.Gore &. Co. (1983) 143 ITR 922(Bom) and Badridas Daga vs. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) , it was held that the real controversy that falls for determination in such cases is whether the loss is incidental to the operation of the business and. this question evidently has to be decided on the facts of each case having regard to the natur…

Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (98 ITR 50) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax