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

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Seth, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…paid were duly accepted in scrutiny assessment and no disallowance were made. I therefore hold that the commission expenses were incurred for the business of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Sasoon David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261 that it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. It was also held by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Sigma Paints Ltd 188 ITR 6 that payment of commission is an allowable expenditure if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business carried on by the as…

ITO, Ward-2(3), Durgapur, Kolkata vs. M/S Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

…e payment to GTFS was made for service charges, for the provision of infrastructure as well as reimbursement of payments made to Network persons. In this regard, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of (Sassion J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (S), are pertinent where it has been held that the assessee was to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such expenditure may be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction even though there w…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…ent appeal. 47. With regard to the argument of the learned DR that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee actually benefited a third party, the learned counsel for the Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasson David 118 ITR 261(SC). It has been laid down in the aforesaid decision that the expression "wholly and exclusively" used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (corresponding to Sec.37(1) 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 bus…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Sp RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4179/MUM/2013[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4179/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 1985–86) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Formerly Hindustan Lever Ltd.) Unilever House, B.D. Sawant Marg ……………. Appellant Chakala, Mumbai 400 099 PAN – AAACH1004N v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Special Range–2, Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala a/w Ms. Jasmine Amalsadwala Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Date of Hearing – 30.01.2018 Date of Order – 26.02.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appe…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, 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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, 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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, 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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, 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…

Renault India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144C(5)

…n 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 and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (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 benefited by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction under…

Abacus Distribution Systems (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1402/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita Nos.1402/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Abacus Distribution Systems (India) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd, Circle- 3(1),Mumbai. Urmi Estate, 14Th Floor, 95, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West),Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aaaca4836H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Jayantkumar,Saurabh Deshpande-Dr.S Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर क" धारा आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act).

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Jayantkumar,Saurabh Deshpande-DR.s
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…t,that as a marketing company the assessee could incur advertisement and promotion expenditure benefits arising there from could also float to its parent company.He referred to cases of NGC Network (India) Private Ltd.(368 ITR 738) and Sassoon J David and Co.(118 ITR 261).The DR argued that the assessee had not explained as to why Rs. 2 crores were not considered as the part of the income, that the incentives were provided against the MFS,that no reasonable explanation was filed for reducing the amount due to it from the AE,that the assessee had right to receive the amount. 6.3.We have heard the rival submission…

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

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…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…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 451/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhaotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…the 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…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) and Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT : 118 ITR 200 (SC) also. 14.4. By placing reliance on the decisions in Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 118 ITR 261 (SC); , CIT v Nestle India Ltd. 337 ITR ITR 103 (Del. HC) (affirmed by the Supreme Court), CIT vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del), CIT vs Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del. Mag.) (HC); , Sony India (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT : 315 ITR 150 (Del ITAT), Star India (P) Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum.) he argued that since…

J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2071/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2066 /Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata -Vs- M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd.. [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2071/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…is whether the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In this regard, we would like to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) wherein it was held : “It has to be observed here that the expression ‘wholly’ and ‘exclusively’ used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean ‘necessarily’. Ordinarily it is for the assessee 13 M/s J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such expen…

DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2066/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2066 /Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata -Vs- M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd.. [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2071/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcj 2851 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, ACA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…is whether the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In this regard, we would like to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) wherein it was held : “It has to be observed here that the expression ‘wholly’ and ‘exclusively’ used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean ‘necessarily’. Ordinarily it is for the assessee 13 M/s J.Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such expen…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…t has been held that even the voluntary payments made for the services rendered are allowable, as it is the businessman's prerogative to decide the quantum of payment. Following further judgments support this view:- 1. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). 2. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 3. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). 6. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 25 4. Further, the AO has invoked Section 40A(2) for the sales m…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…t has been held that even the voluntary payments made for the services rendered are allowable, as it is the businessman's prerogative to decide the quantum of payment. Following further judgments support this view:- 1. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). 2. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 3. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). 6. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 25 4. Further, the AO has invoked Section 40A(2) for the sales m…