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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…ereof u/s.37(1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. As a matter of fact, the word "necessarily" found place in the Income-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC). Therefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete the addition made on account of cash credit u/s.68 and allowing deduction of all the expenses and charge income tax as regular rate of income tax. Therefore, the Department appeal to Tribunal should be dismissed. Facts of appeals of the Department for income-tax assessment years 2018…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…ereof u/s.37(1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. As a matter of fact, the word "necessarily" found place in the Income-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC). Therefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete the addition made on account of cash credit u/s.68 and allowing deduction of all the expenses and charge income tax as regular rate of income tax. Therefore, the Department appeal to Tribunal should be dismissed. Facts of appeals of the Department for income-tax assessment years 201…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…ereof u/s.37(1) even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. As a matter of fact, the word "necessarily" found place in the Income-tax Bill, 1961, but it was dropped at the Legislative anvil [Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC). Therefore, the CIT(A) order is correct to delete the addition made on account of cash credit u/s.68 and allowing deduction of all the expenses and charge income tax as regular rate of income tax. Therefore, the Department appeal to Tribunal should be dismissed. Facts of appeals of the Department for income-tax assessment years 2018…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

Kandla Export Corporation, Gandhidham vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

…in every case. 28. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 353/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…assessing officer. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading(India) Pvt.Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd.), Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 284/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…assessing officer. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. DCIT-ACIT Cent-2 RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 226/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…assessing officer. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Gandhihdam, Gandhidham, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 225/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…assessing officer. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltd vs CIT Bombay (118 ITR 261)(SC) held that 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 for the same. Even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/472/2018HC Delhi06 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. MadhviFor Respondent: Mr. Himanshu S. Sinha, Mr. Prashant
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 92BSection 92C

…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. (P.) 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” wa…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 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, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wharton Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Wilful Finance Investment Co. Pvt.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…11] 11 taxmann.com258(Del) disallowance of indirect expenses made on proportionate basis of total sales was not sustained. 5.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd.v.CIT(Appeals), 288 ITR 001 (SC) and Sassoon J. David & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT,118 ITR 261 (SC)has held that all that section 37 requires is that the expenses should be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose o the business and the expression 'wholly and exclusively used in section 37 does not mea 'necessarily'. The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression for the purpose of earning profits…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sarasoule Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 180/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M Monish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ental benefit goes to a 3rd party out of such expenses, the same cannot be made subject to disallowance. The ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 118 ITR 261 and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Agra Beverages Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 11 taxmann.com 350. 8. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO in his order has not considered the disallowance admitted by the assessee in the statement furnished u/s 132(4) of the Act. As such, the AO was also convinced that the statemen…

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…the decision of his predecessor in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 [Order No. IT-140/14-15, dated 02/01/2017] wherein, in turn, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J David & Company Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT : 118 ITR 261. In the aforesaid judgment it was held, inter alia, that the fact that somebody other than the assessee has also benefited by the expenditure incurred should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it otherwise satisfies the tests laid down by law. The aforesaid judgment suppor…

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

…he decision of his predecessor in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 [Order No. IT-140/14-15, dated 02/01/2017] wherein, in turn, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J David & Company Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT : 118 ITR 261. In the aforesaid judgment it was held, inter alia, that the fact that somebody other than the assessee has also benefited by the expenditure incurred should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it otherwise satisfies the tests laid down by law. The aforesaid judgment suppor…