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

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

…re coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2014) 42 taxmann.com 168 similar issue arose on identical facts like that of assessee. This Tribunal relied on (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261/1 Taxman 485 (SC) and (ii) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 836/30 Taxman 467 (Kar.) The Tribunal held that the expenditure in question was wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and motivated its workforce and allowed the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Respectfully following the above view, we dir…

Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Vs Addl. Cit, Ltd., Range-21, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Disallowance Of Rs.1,08,69,547/- U/S 14A In A Mechanical Way Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Himself Has Disallowed Rs 2.41 Lakhs & That There Cannot Be Any Further Disallowance U/S 14A Without A Cogent Reason. 2. That Both The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Appreciating That Strategic Investments In Dabur India Limited As The Promoter Shareholder, Would Not Form Part Of Disallowance U/S 14A.”

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…that as per the said provisions, any expenses laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business are to be allowed. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 118 ITR 261, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “wholly and exclusively” as used in Section 37 does not mean 12 necessarily and if the expenses have been incurred voluntarily and for the purpose of business, the same has to be allowed. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Eastern Investment Ltd…

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…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 ]. 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…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S South Canara District

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/115/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

…light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. - 274 ITR 465, which has been rendered following 7 the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SASOON J. DAVID & CO. P. LTD. VS CIT - 118 ITR 261 (SC). Having regard to the legally settled principles with reference to the expression 'wholly or exclusively' used in Section 37(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. We find it appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph of the said decision, which reads as under: "20. ……… It has to be observed here th…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S South Canara District

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/393/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

…red in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. - 274 ITR 465, which has been rendered following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SASOON J. DAVID & CO. P. LTD. VS CIT - 118 ITR 261 (SC). Having regard to the legally settled principles with reference to the expression 'wholly or exclusively' used in Section 37(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. We find it appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph of the said decision, which reads as under: "20. ……… It has to be observed here th…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S South Canara District

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/116/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

…light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. - 274 ITR 465, which has been rendered following 7 the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SASOON J. DAVID & CO. P. LTD. VS CIT - 118 ITR 261 (SC). Having regard to the legally settled principles with reference to the expression 'wholly or exclusively' used in Section 37(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. We find it appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph of the said decision, which reads as under: "20. ……… It has to be observed here th…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 279/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 253/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 252/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2209/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2025/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…e fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. These are completely irrelevant consideration. The relevant observation and the finding of the High Court in this regard read as under:- “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure, should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was om…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…csson acknowledges that an expenditure cannot be disallowed wholly or partly because its incidentally benefits the third party. This was in context on Section 57(1) of the Act. Reference was made to the decision in Sassoon J David & Co (P.) 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 benefitted by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of a deduction unde…

DCIT CC 44, Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92

…the business. Hence, learned counsel pleaded that the Assessing Officer sitting in the judgement of necessity of expenditure is totally unsustainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions :- • Sasson J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (118 ITR 261) • Shahzad-a-Nand & Sons Vs. CIT (108 ITR 358) • Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (129 ITR 105) 15. He further submitted that the contract between the parties is to be understood as is understood by the parties and Assessing Officer cannot give his own interpretation to the contract. In this regard he placed reliance upon 15 M/s. Sopariwala…

Indus Mobile Distribtion Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 915/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 915/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 281, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabci6304D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 22.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Relate To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Depreciation On Trademark & Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Advertisement Expenditure & Professional Charges.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

…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 and 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…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1237/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. No. 1237/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Multi Screen Media Pvt.Ltd. Acit,Cc-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor Interface Building No.7 Prathishta Bhawan 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road Old C.G.O.Building Malad(West) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 061 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aabcs1728D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 37(1)

…loyalty and viewership for the channels through effective advertisement and safes promotion help MSM to increase or at the least maintain its distribution revenues. vi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J. David & Co. -Ltd. (1979) (10 CTR 383) (118 ITR 261) has held that no disallowance could be made on the ground that incurring of expenditure was not necessary for the assessee or that it benefited a third party is not a ground on which the expenses can be disallowed in the hands of the assessee concern. vii. That the issue under consideration is covered in the favour of assessee in its own case fo…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…se laws:- CIT vs Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381. (ii) J.K. Woolen Manufacturers vs CIT 72 ITR 612. (iii) Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT 86 ITR 11. (iv) CIT vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co.Ltd. 103 ITR 666. (v) Sassoon J David and Co.P. Ltd. vs CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). (vi) CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). (vii) SA Builders Limited vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). (viii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P. Ltd. 214 ITR 1(Bom). (ix) JR Patel & Sons P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 69 ITR 782 (Guj) . (x) CIT vs. Khambhatta Family Trust (215 Taxman 602) (Guj). (xi) Star India P. Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 (TM) (xii) National Pa…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ion 37(1) of the Act, even if it results in a direct or incidental benefit to a third party. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: ITA No.2453/Del/2016 A.Y. 2005-06 & ITA No.532/Del/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 19 • Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) [Pg. 228 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC) IPg. 230 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07) • SA Builders v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) [Pg. 236 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd.: 214 ITR 1 (Bom) • J.R. Patel & Sons (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 69 ITR 782 (Guj) • CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd…

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

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.899/DEL/2013 & 1704/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Central Circle-6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACA1967D (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1348 & 1349/DEL/2013, 5776/DEL/2014 & 2083/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Central Circle-6, Ltd., New Delhi 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place,…

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

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.899/DEL/2013 & 1704/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Central Circle-6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACA1967D (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1348 & 1349/DEL/2013, 5776/DEL/2014 & 2083/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Central Circle-6, Ltd., New Delhi 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place,…