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

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 969/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019
Section 139(1)

…e 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…

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 968/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019
Section 139(1)

…e 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…

Indus Mobile Distribution P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 967/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 20.11.2019
Section 139(1)

…e 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…

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8965/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

…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…

ITO, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2163/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 133Section 143(3)

…e payment to GTFS was made for service charges, for the provision of infrastructure as well as reimbursement of payments made to Network persons. In this regard, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of (Sassion J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (S), are pertinent where it has been held that the assessee was to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such 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 even though there w…

M/S the Estate vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/34/2010HC Karnataka10 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

…s. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC), ‘METAL BOX COMPANY OF INDIA LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN’ 73 ITR 53 (SC), ‘JIWANRAM SHEODUTTRAI Vs. CIT’ 279 ITR 512 (Cal), ‘CIT Vs. 8 BURHWAL SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD.’ 82 ITR 784 (ALL) AND ‘SASSOON J DAVID AND CO. P LTD Vs. CIT’ 118 ITR 261 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has taken us through the order of assessment and has submitted that the appellant failed to avail of the opportunity of cross-examination which was afforded to it. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on reco…

Permali Wallce Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 222/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Permali Wallace Ltd. Acit-3(1) बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcp7557R Appellant By Miss Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 02.07.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 22.02.2016 By Acit- 3(1), Bhopal. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ose and there is no personal element. Since they have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, no adhoc disallowance should have been made. She placed reliance on following judgments: 1. Sassoon J. David & CO. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261(SC) 2. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). 3. Addl. CIT vs. Rajashtan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 465(Raj) 4. CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd./Birla Bros. (P.) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. Per Contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower…

Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed assessee is allowed

ITA 3059/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 111, Rectangle-I, Circle-5(2), Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccc0446P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th February, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-44, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 111, Rectangle-I, Circle-5(2), Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AACCC0446P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 01.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement : .11.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25th February, 2015 of the CIT…

Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5410/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 5410/Del/2015 [A.Y 2008-09]

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 40a

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5410/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2008-09] JAS Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T. 1st Floor, A - Wing Circle 4(1) Commercial Complex New Delhi Radisson Hotel, New Delhi PAN: AABCJ 5564 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor Shri Sumit Lalchandani Shri Vansh Pandya, Adv Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 14.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With…

Nalwa Steel Power Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 451/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…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 aha 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…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ined liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 11 -: Officer under scrutiny proceedings. During the…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ined liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 11 -: Officer under scrutiny proceedings. During the…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ined liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 11 -: Officer under scrutiny proceedings. During the…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ined liability and the same is deductable as deduction and placed reliance on the following judgments. S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Sassoon J. David & Co P Ltd vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We shall take up the primary ground which goes to the very root of the matter i.e validality of the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly original assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 11 -: Officer under scrutiny proceedings. During the…

Assistant Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 716/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.510 & 511/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.510 & 511/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune, Wakdewadi, ACIT, Circle-10, Pune – 411 003 Pune PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.715 & 716/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent…

Assistant Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 715/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.510 & 511/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.510 & 511/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune, Wakdewadi, ACIT, Circle-10, Pune – 411 003 Pune PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.715 & 716/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 511/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.510 & 511/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.510 & 511/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune, Wakdewadi, ACIT, Circle-10, Pune – 411 003 Pune PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.715 & 716/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 510/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.510 & 511/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.510 & 511/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune, Wakdewadi, ACIT, Circle-10, Pune – 411 003 Pune PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.715 & 716/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…o decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case." ii) The Assessee can claim deduction u/s 37(1), even though there is no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. Sassoon 1. David & Co. fPl Ltd. vs. CIT ri979) 118 ITR 261 fSCl “..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 any necessity and if it is incur red for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee is entitled to deduction even though there was no compellin…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…o decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case." ii) The Assessee can claim deduction u/s 37(1), even though there is no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. Sassoon 1. David & Co. fPl Ltd. vs. CIT ri979) 118 ITR 261 fSCl “..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 any necessity and if it is incur red for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee is entitled to deduction even though there was no compellin…