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

Kalburgi Cement Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 573/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Kalyanasundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 270ASection 92C

…the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241/209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261/1 Taxman 485 (SC) held that the TPO cannot determine ALP at nil by holding that there was no need to incur such expenditure. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 32Section 37(1)

…oluntarily 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 was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. (Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC)). Thought the main objects of business are to earn profits, business purposes are wider than profit-making purposes. Business expediency does not require that expenses should be incurred only for earning immediate profits. Expenses incurred though not directly related to earning to income, may be allowable deductions if they are related to t…

Dhawani Nainesh Pastagia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 324/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhwani Nainesh Pastagia, I.T.O., 55, Mitrali Co-Op Housing Society, Anand Ward-1(3)(6), Vs. Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Surat. Pan No. Arzpp 3649 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

…ly for the purpose of business. Similar commission was paid in earlier years which was not disputed. To support her submission, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), CIT Vs Walchand and Co (P) Ltd. (supra) and Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. Vs CIT (supra). 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr.DR submits that no agreement or terms and conditions of such contract for payment of commission or procurement of business was furnished.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2728/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 37

…tion to substantiate that the expenditure was not for the purposes of business. The appellant had given a copy of form No.24 for the employees and the details of rent paid by it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J.David and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 118 ITR 261 [1979] has observed that " it has to be observed here that the expression 'wholly and exclusively' used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act [section 37(1) of the present Act] does into 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…

Thrivei Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Central Circle (I/C), Salem

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

ITA 674/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…oint of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It is further observed that the rule that expenditure can only be justified if there is corresponding increase in the profits is erroneous. In the case of Sassoon J. David and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court after referring to the legislative history held that Assessing Officer cannot question the necessity of the expenditure nor is that necessary for the assessee to show that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business carried on by him has actually resulted in profit or income either in the same year…

Union Bank of India( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Circle – 2(1), Corporation Bank), Mangalore. 239, Union Bank Niwas, Vidhan Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Pan : Aaacc 7245 E Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 3Section 43

…for promoting the business, the deduction would be permissible under section 37(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court in coming to the above conclusion followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261(SC). 9. Learned Counsel accordingly submitted that the expenditure in question was for the purpose of business of the assessee and for promoting its business interest. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., GA2/2022 dated 16.11.2022 wherein it was held that…

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…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. 32 IT(TP)A No.3091/Bang/2018 M/s.United Spirits Limited. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in supp…

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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 su…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Standard Chartered Bank v. The Director of Income-tax (IT) 3rd Floor, Tax Department 1st Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 PAN: AABCS4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented by : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash Date of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This ap…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…TR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) (C.1.1) Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the disallowances in respect of club membership expenses was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15, and he added that…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…TR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) (C.1.1) Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the disallowances in respect of club membership expenses was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15, and he added that…

Pbs Oil Industries Limited, Dhamtari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pbs Oil Industries Limited Plot No.1, Arjuni Industrial Area, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493773 Pan : Aabcp3646B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…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 alia 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…

Kaizen Hotels and Resorts Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. -8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"यएवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 10(2)(xv)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ion in the vicinity of business. Moreover it is the assesse who shall decide the expenses to be incurred for the business and not the AO.The case of the assesse finds support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sasson J. David & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) wherein the Hon’ble court has held “it is for the assesse to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business. Such expenditure may not be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits the assesse can claim the deductions u/s 10(2)(xv) of the Inco…

Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 492/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…v. Bruce 6 Tax Cases 399 (HL); (ii) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC); (iv) Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC); (v) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261 (SC). the direction of the Hon’ble DRP to Assessing Officer consider the addition u/s 37 alternatively. 14. The ground No.2 challenges TP adjustment on account of international transaction of import of raw materials with AEs. 15. As regards to the addition of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of transaction of import of raw material of Rs.21…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 351/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…v. Bruce 6 Tax Cases 399 (HL); (ii) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC); (iv) Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC); (v) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261 (SC). the direction of the Hon’ble DRP to Assessing Officer consider the addition u/s 37 alternatively. 14. The ground No.2 challenges TP adjustment on account of international transaction of import of raw materials with AEs. 15. As regards to the addition of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of transaction of import of raw material of Rs.21…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…sum of money was expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee 69 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & In a subsequent decision in T Sassoon J David and Co P Ltd vs CIT 1979 118 ITR 261 the Apex Court held that the three tests mentioned in the above Supreme Court case have to be read disjunctively Consequently if a payment satisfiesany of the three tests the same would be admissible 24. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company has claimed foreign tour expenses incur…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…sum of money was expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee 69 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & In a subsequent decision in T Sassoon J David and Co P Ltd vs CIT 1979 118 ITR 261 the Apex Court held that the three tests mentioned in the above Supreme Court case have to be read disjunctively Consequently if a payment satisfiesany of the three tests the same would be admissible 24. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company has claimed foreign tour expenses incur…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…sum of money was expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee 69 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & In a subsequent decision in T Sassoon J David and Co P Ltd vs CIT 1979 118 ITR 261 the Apex Court held that the three tests mentioned in the above Supreme Court case have to be read disjunctively Consequently if a payment satisfiesany of the three tests the same would be admissible 24. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company has claimed foreign tour expenses incur…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…sum of money was expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee 69 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & In a subsequent decision in T Sassoon J David and Co P Ltd vs CIT 1979 118 ITR 261 the Apex Court held that the three tests mentioned in the above Supreme Court case have to be read disjunctively Consequently if a payment satisfiesany of the three tests the same would be admissible 24. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company has claimed foreign tour expenses incur…

M/S. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Central-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

…sum of money was expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee 69 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & In a subsequent decision in T Sassoon J David and Co P Ltd vs CIT 1979 118 ITR 261 the Apex Court held that the three tests mentioned in the above Supreme Court case have to be read disjunctively Consequently if a payment satisfiesany of the three tests the same would be admissible 24. Brief facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company has claimed foreign tour expenses incur…