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

118 ITR 261Supreme Court of India1979#238 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 372,250 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

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Cytespace Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s. Cytespace Research Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2013-14 there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. In this aspect reliance were placed in the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Sassoon J. Devid and Co. (P) Ltd.-vs-CIT reported in 118 ITR 261. Apart from that where remuneration was taxed in the hands of the directors at the same rate at which it would have been taxed in the hands of the company the same would be revenue neutral. The judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PWS Engineers Ltd.-vs-DCIT in Tax Appeal No.209/2015 was relied upon by the Learned AR. He…

Ngc Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4534/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Ngc Network (India) Pvt. Ltd Acit Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, V. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aabcn1401A

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ NGC Network (India) Pvt. Ltd ACIT Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, v. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AABCN1401A आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4388/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ ACIT Range 11(1) NGC Network (India) Pvt. R.No. 439, Ltd…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Ngc Network (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4388/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Ngc Network (India) Pvt. Ltd Acit Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, V. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aabcn1401A

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ NGC Network (India) Pvt. Ltd ACIT Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, v. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AABCN1401A आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4388/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ ACIT Range 11(1) NGC Network (India) Pvt. R.No. 439, Ltd…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lic Nomura Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. Nilu Jaggi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)

…… ………………………………………………………….. 7 Considering the above fact on records, and also consider SEBI circulars, market conditions in June and July, 2010 and various judicial citations cited above and specifically in the case of Sassoon J David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (118 ITR 261), Karnataka High Court decision in CIT vs. Canara Bank Ltd. (ITA No. 1397 of 2006), Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (133 ITR 756) and Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (38 ITR 601; I am of the considered opinion that expenditure was incurred by company in order to preserve the income generating machinery since abo…

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…csson acknowledges that an expenditure cannot be disallowed wholly or partly because its incidentally benefits the third party. This was in context on Section 57(1) of the Act. Reference was made to the decision in Sassoon J David & Co Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 26 (SC). The Supreme Court in the said decision emphasised that the expression 'wholly and exclusively' used in Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act did not mean 'necessarily'. It said: "The fact that somebody other than the Assessee is also benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction under…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir-2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd. Pan: Aabcc1825B Deptt (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, FCA, ld.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…be concerned with is whether the transaction was done in the ordinary course of business, however mistaken an assessee might have been. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the decision rendered in the case of Sassoon J David & Co. P Ltd vs. CIT reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) at page 275 of the said report that "It has to be observed here that the expression 'wholly and exclusively' used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act [of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section 37(1) of the 1961 Act] does not mean M/s.Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd. 4 'necessarily'. Ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether an…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…al benefit to the foreign associated enterprise, it cannot be said that the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by the Indian entity was for promoting the brand of the foreign associated enterprise. As mentioned in Sassoon J. David [1979] 118 ITR 261, 276 (SC) 'the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law'." 8.2 On a careful consideration of the facts on…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…al benefit to the foreign associated enterprise, it cannot be said that the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by the Indian entity was for promoting the brand of the foreign associated enterprise. As mentioned in Sassoon J. David [1979] 118 ITR 261, 276 (SC) 'the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law'." 8.2 On a careful consideration of the facts on…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…al benefit to the foreign associated enterprise, it cannot be said that the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by the Indian entity was for promoting the brand of the foreign associated enterprise. As mentioned in Sassoon J. David [1979] 118 ITR 261, 276 (SC) 'the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law'." 8.2 On a careful consideration of the facts on…

Terex Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4123/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Nalwa Steel Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7176/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92D

…ot apply." It will, therefore, be clear that even if an expense is incurred voluntarily, it may still be construed as 'wholly and exclusively’. Explaining this principle, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Sassoon J David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [(1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC)] inter aha observed that :"It has to be observed here that the expression "wholly and exclusively" used in s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean "necessarily". Ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such expenditure may be incurred voluntarily and without…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…iture under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s…

Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3, Gurgaon

ITA 6366/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word “necessarily” was omi…

M/S. Terex Equipment Private Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1882/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2009-10] Terex Equipment Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T [Formerly Terex Vectra Equipment Company Circle 18)(1) Private Limited] New Delhi Plot No. 22, Udyog Vihar Greater Noida, Po Surajpur. Pan : Aabct 8105 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was omi…

Sandeep Marwah vs. Assistant CIT

ITA/1249/2018HC Delhi12 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)

…l expense; or (iii) an allowance of the character described in section 30 to 36 and section 80 VV. CIT V. India Molasses Co.(P) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC)/ J.K .Cotton Mfrs. Ltd. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 221 (SC)/ Sasson J. David & co.(P) Ltd. V.CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC). In the case of CIT v. Shahibag entrepreneurs (P) Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 810 (Guj), it was held that it cannot be disputed that before an assessee can become entitled to an allowance under Section 37(1), he must satisfy the department of the purpose for which the amount is spend. In ITA Nos.1249/18 & 1250/18 Page…