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

Corning Sas- India Branch Office, Gurugram vs. DDIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon

ITA 816/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…g in favour of the assessee by rejecting the contentions raised by the Revenue. The operative part of the judgment in EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- “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…

Corning Sas- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 817/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…g in favour of the assessee by rejecting the contentions raised by the Revenue. The operative part of the judgment in EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- “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 Corning Sas India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 548/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…g in favour of the assessee by rejecting the contentions raised by the Revenue. The operative part of the judgment in EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- “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. Taegu Tec India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1337/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e case of EKL Appliances Ltd., 345 ITR 241. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has reiterated the position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EKL Appliances was followed by Page 8 of 11 several coordinate benches of this Tribunal, few of them are as follows: 8. Therefore what follows from the above decision is that the ALP of the management services fee cannot be determined at Nil by questioning the necessity or the benefits o…

Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. JCIT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 782/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kalamadar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…it is not necessary to establish the necessity of incurring of such expenditure. It is only if it is for promoting business, as held by ITA Nos.782 & 1495/Bang/2016 Page 6 of 8 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (118 ITR 261) wherein it has been held as under: "It is relevant to refer at this stage to the. legislative history of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. An attempt was made in the Income-tax Bill of 1961 to lay down the necessity' of the expenditure as a condition for claiming deduction under section 3…

M/S. Kanhaiyalal Dudheria, Sandur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1495/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kalamadar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…it is not necessary to establish the necessity of incurring of such expenditure. It is only if it is for promoting business, as held by ITA Nos.782 & 1495/Bang/2016 Page 6 of 8 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (118 ITR 261) wherein it has been held as under: "It is relevant to refer at this stage to the. legislative history of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. An attempt was made in the Income-tax Bill of 1961 to lay down the necessity' of the expenditure as a condition for claiming deduction under section 3…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rning the income. We are of the view that on the facts of this case, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion regarding the allowability of the expenditure in question. 9.13 Similar decisions have been rendered in the cases of Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd, 118 ITR 261 (SC) and Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, 272 ITR 193 (Cal), as cited by the appellant, although they are in the context of business expenditure deductible under section 37(1) of the Act. In the case of Beam Estates (P) Ltd, 15 Taxmann.com 386 (Delhi) cited by the appellant (supra) Hon'ble ITAT has observed that: "The assessee had received loan fro…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rning the income. We are of the view that on the facts of this case, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion regarding the allowability of the expenditure in question. 9.13 Similar decisions have been rendered in the cases of Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd, 118 ITR 261 (SC) and Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, 272 ITR 193 (Cal), as cited by the appellant, although they are in the context of business expenditure deductible under section 37(1) of the Act. In the case of Beam Estates (P) Ltd, 15 Taxmann.com 386 (Delhi) cited by the appellant (supra) Hon'ble ITAT has observed that: "The assessee had received loan fro…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…rning the income. We are of the view that on the facts of this case, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion regarding the allowability of the expenditure in question. 9.13 Similar decisions have been rendered in the cases of Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd, 118 ITR 261 (SC) and Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd, 272 ITR 193 (Cal), as cited by the appellant, although they are in the context of business expenditure deductible under section 37(1) of the Act. In the case of Beam Estates (P) Ltd, 15 Taxmann.com 386 (Delhi) cited by the appellant (supra) Hon'ble ITAT has observed that: "The assessee had received loan fro…

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4726/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishicasio India Company Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 210, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-3(1), Vs. (First Floor), Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc3448H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. TM Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd, DCIT, 210, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-3(1), Vs. (First Floor), Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACC3448H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv Revenue by: Sh. TM Shivakumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 03/04/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. ITA No 4726/Del/2010 A Y 2006-07 1. Brief facts of the case is that assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Casio compute…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 623/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…nd the Assessing Officer has misdirected himself. In the course of his arguments, the Ld. Representative referred to the propositions laid down in the following judgments in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261(SC) (ii) S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiriji, 91 ITR 544 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in the earlier paras. As per the Ld. Departmental Representative, there was no breach of agreement by…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 4763/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…nd the Assessing Officer has misdirected himself. In the course of his arguments, the Ld. Representative referred to the propositions laid down in the following judgments in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261(SC) (ii) S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiriji, 91 ITR 544 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in the earlier paras. As per the Ld. Departmental Representative, there was no breach of agreement by…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…for the purpose of the business, reasoonablen3ess of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of businessman and not of the revenue as held in CIT vs. Walchand & Co.(P)Ltd [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC). In Sasson J.David & Co.(P)Ltd. Vs. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC). It has been held that the assessee can claim deduction under section 37(1) even though there is no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. In Goodyear India ltd. Vs. ITO[2000] 73 ITD 189/68TTJ(Delhi)TM 330, it has been held that expenditure incurred to get right to use licence for limited period (where the assessee company, manufact…

Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3494/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. Cit 1St Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Assessee By: Shri F.V. Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 17.03.2010 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,A Share Broker, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Its Total Income Of Rs.390.03 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao) Completed Assessment On 30. 03.2009,Determining Its Income At Rs.401.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…spapers, that the payment made by the assessee was not excessive.The AR relied upon the f cases of Nainital Bank Ltd.(62ITR638); F.E.Dinshaw Ltd.(36ITR114);Sales Magnesite Pvt.Ltd. (214 ITR 1),Eastern Investments Ltd. (20ITR1);Sasson J. David and Co. Pvt.Ltd.(118 ITR 261);F.M. Chinoy and Co. Pvt.Ltd. (74 ITR780);Glaxo Laboratories(India)Pvt.Ltd.(114ITR110);Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544);Tata sons Ltd.(18 ITR 460);Delhi Safe Deposit Co.Ltd.(133ITR756) and Walchand and Co. Pvt. Ltd.(65ITR381(SC).The DR relied upon the order of the FAA. 5.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material be…

The DCIT, (It), Cir-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Michel Bau Gmbh & Co. Kg, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.395 & 396/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: None (Adjournment request rejected. )

…& Co.KG A.Yr.2010-11 & 2011-12 being rendered and the payment was being made fully and responsively for purpose of business, the same is to be allowed as deduction. The ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. v CIT 118 ITR 261 cited by the appellant also supports this proposition. In fact, there is a plethora of judgments with ratio. that once the fact of the expenditure having been incurred for business purpose is established, the revenue can not assume the role of ascertaining how much is is the reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. S…

Lodha Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lodha Properties Vs. Acit- Cc-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan/Gir No. Aabc12222K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Lodha Properties Vs. ACIT- CC-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 PAN/GIR No. AABC12222K Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Dr. Santosh Mankoskar Date of Hearing 07/11/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-2010 in the matter of order passed u/s.…

Ashraj Foods & Veverages P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicted hereinabove

ITA 4838/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ashraj Foods & Vs. Ito – 9(1)-1, Mumbai Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.23, Galaxy Apts., B.J.Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5134E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…e has direct nexus with the business of the assessee and the expenditure will yield benefits to the business. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:-  CIT v Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 1973 91 ITR 544 (SC)  Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd., V/s CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC)  CIT v Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi HC)  Amarjothi Pictures v CIT (1968) 69 ITR 755 (Mad.) CIT v Gobald Motor Service (P) Ltd., (1975) 100 ITR 240 (Mad.) 13. In view of the above discussion and applying the proposition of law laid down in above judicial pronouncements to the facts of instant case, it is clear t…

Synergy (I) Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 8664/MUM/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 132Section 143(3)

…f carrying on of its business. It is also a well-settled compelling necessity of incurring such expenditure. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd., 118 ITR 261 (SC). 12. Before parting, we may also refer to an additional Ground raised by the assessee on this aspect to contend that the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the salary expenditure was not within the scope and ambit of Sec. 153A of the Act. Such plea has been raised with respect to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 on the ground that…

Synergy (I) Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 8663/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 132Section 143(3)

…f carrying on of its business. It is also a well-settled compelling necessity of incurring such expenditure. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd., 118 ITR 261 (SC). 12. Before parting, we may also refer to an additional Ground raised by the assessee on this aspect to contend that the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the salary expenditure was not within the scope and ambit of Sec. 153A of the Act. Such plea has been raised with respect to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 on the ground that…

Vvf Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03

ITA 3588/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh R. Prasad (CIT-DR) &
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…on even though assessee may not be in a position to show compelling necessity of incurring such expenditure. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd., 118 ITR 261 (SC). 12. Before parting, we may also refer to an additional Ground raised by the assessee on this aspect to contend that the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the salary expenditure was not within the scope and ambit of Sec. 153A of the Act. Such plea has been raised with respect to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 on the ground tha…