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.

How many judgments cite Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

323 judgments on BharatTax cite Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 1961, Section 195, Section 147, Section 148.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261)

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…d image of the group company of Huawei Technology and disallowed the advertisement expenses to the tune 21 ITA No.7509/Del./2017 ITA No.7510/Del./2017 of 30% is also not sustainable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) held that, “the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefited by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfied otherwise the tests laid down by law.” 34. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 25…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2434/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…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…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ge Medical Systems (I) (P) Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/410/2012HC Karnataka18 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.', (2003) 128 TAXMAN 626 (BOMBAY), 'EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGMEENT OF INDIANN CABLE CO. VS. WORKMEN', (1974) 3 SCC 11, 'SASSOON J. DAVID AND CO. P. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, BOMBAY', 118 ITR 261 (SC) ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (I) (P.) LTD.', (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 414 (KARNATAKA), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 606 (KARN), 'THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1 VS. M/S G.E. MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., ITA NO.…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits. 4.4.9 The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC); ii. Sasson J.David 8& Co. P.Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC); iii. CIT vs. Walchand and Co. (P.) Ltd., [ 1967] 65 ITR 381(SC); iv. CIT vs. Panipat Woollen 8v General Mills Co. Ltd., [ 1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) v. CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC) vi. Vipin Kumar Khanna v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 7822 (Delhi) vii. CIT vs. Dalmia Cement P. Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del) viii. PCIT v. Reeb…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

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)Section 144C(1)Section 156

…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 IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 56 of 71 & 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…

M/S. Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…bject matter of challenge or disallowance by the Assessing Officer, once it is accepted that the expenditure was wholly, i.e. the quantum of expenditure incurred was fully, and exclusively for business purpose. In Sassoon]. Davit & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261(SC), it has been held that an assessee can claim deduction for expenditure incurred for business purposes and no one else has authority to decide whether or not the assessee should have incurred the said expenditure. The expenditure cannot be disallowed wholly or partly because it would incidentally benefit a third person once the requirements of…

I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Brahmdeo Sinha & Co. Hardcoke (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1481/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S. Brahmdeo Sinha & Co. (Hard Kolkata Coke) Pvt. Ltd. (Pan: Aaccb6632J) Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing (Virtual) 05.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2020 For The Appellant Shri Jayantakhanra, Jcit, Cit, Dr For The Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…ue to commercial expediency. On this issue let us look at the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bharati Tele Venture (2011) 381 ITR 502 (Del) wherein their Lordship’s relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sasoon J David vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) held “ The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that though the borrowed amount was not utilized by the assessee in its own business and had been advanced as interest free loan to the sister concerns, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the advanced such an amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency.”…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4637/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-2(3)(1), Vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor 24, Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-58 24, Bombay House 344, Aayakar Bhavan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…id that it is not incurred for the purpose of the business of the assessee. We find that the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 118 ITR 261. For the sake of brevity, the operative portion of the said decision is not reproduced herein. Hence, we hold that the payment of Rs.89 lakhs on account of pension to wholetime Directors on the basis of Board resolution of the assessee company is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee and is allowable as deduc…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Landis+Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2298/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akash Patel, CA

Section 143(3)

…of the assessee." 7. It is also a settled-principle that ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether anyexpenditure should be incurred in the course of his business. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sassoon J David and Co. (P) Ltdvs 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 andto earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction for the same. Even the Karnataka HC in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view that the commerci…

Anjana Vinayak, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-1, Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 247/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raman Kumar Goyal, CCIT(Retd)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT DR

Section 57

…in Law. Disallowance of deduction under section 57(iii) 2. The CTT(A) erred is not considering the decision of ITAT Agra in the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal (ITA No. 176/Agra/2013) that relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sasoon J David & Co. (118 ITR 261) 3. The CIT(A) erred in relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan 248 TTR 449, Wherein the Assessee did not claim deduction U/s 57(iii), whereas the Assessee claimed deduction U/s 57(iii). 4. The CIT(A) erred is not noticing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case V.P. Gopinathan confirmed the decision…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word “necessarily” was omi…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word “necessarily” was omi…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word “necessarily” was omi…

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…he Act. This fact is recognised in the judgment itself. The fact that the language employed in Section 37(1) of the Act is broader than Section 57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word “necessarily” was omi…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…such cases is to see whether: 35 IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 . "was the sum of money expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business" Again, in Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261/ 1 Taxman 485 (SC) the Supreme Court outlined the correct test of commercial expediency as the guiding principle to decide whether the expenditure was to facilitate profits, as follows: (iii) that the 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 asses…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1716/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…not 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…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1715/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…not 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…

M/S Tristar Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/69/2011HC Karnataka12 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 260

…e of business. In support of his submission, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David and Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) and the another decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and another, reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 6 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove that it had incurred business expenditure. It is further s…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…overed by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (124 ITR i), L. H. Sugar Factor & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (125 ITR 293), CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140), Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (118 ITR 261). From the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we will reproduce the findings of one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble Court was concerned whether, Estate Duty paid by the company on the death of shareholders can be said to be, "laid out or expended wholly or ITA. No…

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ge Medical Systems (I) (P) Ltd

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

M/S. Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Brahmdeo Sinha & Co. Hardcoke (P) Ltd., Kolkata

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Landis+Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas

Anjana Vinayak, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-1, Yamunanagar

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mangaluru

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Mangaluru

M/S Tristar Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai