Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

118 ITR 261Supreme Court of India1979#237 most cited

What is Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

323

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 118 ITR 261 · Section 37(1) disallowance · business expenditure · commercial expediency · indirect benefit sister concerns · associated enterprises · AMP expenses · related party transactions · Section 40A(2)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 1961Section 195Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)section 5(2)section 40a(2)(b)commercial expediencysection 40a(2)section 195arm's length pricesection 40(a)(i)section 37(1)section 9(1)section 37associated enterprises

Judgments citing Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…penses indirectly benefitted assessee's sister concerns, then also no disallowance of such AMP Expenses could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) - CIT, Chandulal Keshavial & Co.: 38 ITR 601 (SC) - Nestle India Ltd DCTT: 111 TTJ 498 (Del) CITY. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: (2014) 42 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…penses indirectly benefitted assessee's sister concerns, then also no disallowance of such AMP Expenses could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) - CIT, Chandulal Keshavial & Co.: 38 ITR 601 (SC) - Nestle India Ltd DCTT: 111 TTJ 498 (Del) CITY. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: (2014) 42 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…penses indirectly benefitted assessee's sister concerns, then also no disallowance of such AMP Expenses could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) - CIT, Chandulal Keshavial & Co.: 38 ITR 601 (SC) - Nestle India Ltd DCTT: 111 TTJ 498 (Del) CITY. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: (2014) 42 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…penses indirectly benefitted assessee's sister concerns, then also no disallowance of such AMP Expenses could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) - CIT, Chandulal Keshavial & Co.: 38 ITR 601 (SC) - Nestle India Ltd DCTT: 111 TTJ 498 (Del) CITY. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: (2014) 42 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…penses indirectly benefitted assessee's sister concerns, then also no disallowance of such AMP Expenses could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) - CIT, Chandulal Keshavial & Co.: 38 ITR 601 (SC) - Nestle India Ltd DCTT: 111 TTJ 498 (Del) CITY. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.: (2014) 42 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi) - CITY. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd.: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) - CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd.: ITA No.966 of 2009 (Del HC) - Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…usinessman, and not from the Revenue. Even if an expense does not result in immediate profit, it is deductible if incurred for promoting business or protecting future growth. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (118 ITR 261) has held that “wholly and exclusively” does not mean “necessarily,” and that it is for the assessee . ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 46 to decide the manner in which business is carried on. Therefore, the losses incurred in the initial years, arising from the assessee’s strategy to expand operations and…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…usinessman, and not from the Revenue. Even if an expense does not result in immediate profit, it is deductible if incurred for promoting business or protecting future growth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (118 ITR 261) has held that “wholly and exclusively…

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…usinessman, and not from the Revenue. Even if an expense does not result in immediate profit, it is deductible if incurred for promoting business or protecting future growth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (118 ITR 261) has held that “wholly and exclusively…

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

…usinessman, and not from the Revenue. Even if an expense does not result in immediate profit, it is deductible if incurred for promoting business or protecting future growth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (118 ITR 261) has held that “wholly and exclusively…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

…usinessman, and not from the Revenue. Even if an expense does not result in immediate profit, it is deductible if incurred for promoting business or protecting future growth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (118 ITR 261) has held that “wholly and exclusively…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBBALLI vs. HUBLI SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD., DHARWAD

In the result the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer are allowed as indicated above

ITA 554/BANG/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Hubli Scan Centre Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, 6-13 Lgf, Eureka Junction, Circle-1 & Tps, Travelers Bungalow Road Vs. Hubballi Dharwad - 580029 Pan: Aaach9520M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…re Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836 ( KAR HC) and CIT vs. T S Hajee Moosa & Co. (1985)153 ITR 422 (Mad HC) . Further wholly and exclusively does necessarily as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sassoon J David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1979), 118 ITR 261 (SC). Hence in your scn , you have stated that, the transaction of writing off of deposits is not for the purpose of business is incorrect in our case. For the purpose of business is a wider in scope than mere purpose of earning profits. In our case, the deposit giving to Suchirayu Health Care India Ltd. Is not voluntary in nature but for the pur…

KASTURI MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,JOKA, THAKURPUKUR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…itute its own commercial judgment or make the business decision an issue, unless there is proof of lack of nexus between the expenditure and the assessee's business, which has held by Hon’ble Suprmee Court in the case of Sattoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Lad x CIT, 118 ITR 261 (SC)). The ld. AR also submitted that contractual ceilings of ₹6,92,000 (ward staff) and 232,100 (supervisors) were never breached and the so-called "excess" of ₹7,07,957 and 32,936 arose purely due to payment of GST of ₹1,07,994 and 5,024 respectively and no ingenuity or sham expenditure has been established and Assessing Officer passed the asse…

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ce paperbook) (viii) Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on account of incidental third party benefit is impermissible (ix) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) (Page 367 of convenience paperbook) (x) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261) (SC) (Page 379 of convenience paperbook) (xi) CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd. (2010) 195 taxman 256 (Delhi) (Page 382-383 of convenience paperbook) (xii) CIT v. Agra Bevrages Corporation (P.) Ltd. (2011) 11 taxmann.com 350 (Delhi) (Page 388 of convenience paperbook) 15 (xiii) CIT v. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 133 (Delhi…

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AYAKAR BHAWAN vs. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD, ANDHERI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4278/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3(1)(1) 402/Ackruti Star, Midc, 607, Ayakar Bhawan, M.K. Andheri East, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaacs8598L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Jitendra Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), Dated 21.04.2025, Passed Against The Order By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.03.2014, For Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.7,32,38,757/- Incurred By The Assessee For Building Of ‘Samsonite’ Brand Without Appreciating The Fact That These Expenses Were Incurred Towards Creating Intangible Rights In Its Favour Which Are Capable Of Giving Enduring Benefits To The Assessee Company & Hence Are Assignable Over A Number Of Year?

For Appellant: Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…sment Year 2010-11 (ii) Expire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1(SC) Proposition: Even if there is the enduring benefit, if expenditure is in revenue filed same is to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. (iii) Sassoon J David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261(SC) Proposition: It is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure is to be incurred for the business. 22. Furthermore learned counsel submitted that the allocation of 50% out of advertisement expenditure and 60% out of sales promotion expenses as capital expenditure towards brand building is totally without any basis and based upon surmis…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…9  Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals Vs. DCIT, reported in [2021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CI…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…9  Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals Vs. DCIT, reported in [2021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CI…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…9  Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals Vs. DCIT, reported in [2021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CI…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…9  Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals Vs. DCIT, reported in [2021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CI…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 37(1)

…Pending appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not detract from its binding effect in the absence of a stay or contrary ruling. 27. Moreover, the principle of commercial expediency laid down in decisions such as Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261, SC) and CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381, SC) mandates allowance of any expenditure incurred to secure competent workforce and ensure organisational growth. 28. In the present case, the appellant’s outlay towards ESOP and ISOP represents a conscious, business-driven compensation mechanism to reward and retain employees. The cost is real, the b…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…nu/s.37(1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such\nexpenditure. As a matter of fact, the word \"necessarily\" found place in the\nIncome-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon\nJ. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC).\n\nTherefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete the addition made on\naccount of cash credit u/s.68 and allowing deduction of all the expenses\nand charge income tax as regular rate of income tax.\n\nTherefore, the Department appeal to Tribunal should be dismissed.\n\nFacts of appeals of the Department for income-tax assessment y…

Showing 1–20 of 323 · Page 1 of 17

...
Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261) — Cited in 323 Judgments | BharatTax