JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by V. Kameswar Rao J.-The present appeal has been filed by assessee under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", in short), challenging order dated August 16, 2013, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal", in short) whereby Tribunal has upheld order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated March 2, 2012, affirming findings of Assessing Officer in assessment order dated December 10, 2010. following question of law was framed on April 15, 2014, for consideration of this court: "Did Tribunal fall into error in holding that assessee had not set up its business till March 31, 2008? Some of relevant facts are, assessee-company was incorporated on September 19, 2007, under Companies Act, 1956, to carry on trading activities which primarily included wholesale trading of all kinds of consumer goods durables, articles and products. year 2008-09 was first year of assessment. assessee-company filed e-return of income for assessment year 2008-09. appellant-assessee claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 9,03,03,547 and claimed business loss of Rs. 8,64,07,610 after setting off income from other sources amounting to Rs. 38,95,937. Show- cause notice dated October 21, 2010, was issued to assessee as to why business loss claimed may not be disallowed. case of appellant- assessee was that loss had occurred on account of expenses incurred for earning and conducting business in India. Assessing Officer was of view that expenditure incurred was prior to commencement of business as it was not fully set up. Thus, expenditure was not allowed as deduction. Section 28 to section 43D of Act, which relates to computation of business income were elucidated upon. Assessing Officer supported his conclusion considering case of manufacturing concern, which could be said to be set up only when it was ready for production. In case of trader, Assessing Officer was of view that distinction may not be significant once there were stocks to be sold. In other words, according to him, manufacturing concern is said to be set up only when production gets started and in case of trader, when stocks are available to be sold. In paragraph 3.1 to 3.3 and 3.5 to 3.7 of assessment order, following was his conclusion: "3.1 I have carefully considered reply submitted by assessee. expenditure incurred in respect of any business is deductible from date of commencement of business but only where it has been set up. result is that there is plethora of cases on difference as between concept of commencement of business and setting up of business. expenditure incurred prior to setting up of business is not allowed as deduction. Pre- commencement expenditure may well be dead loss unless it could be treated as cost of capital assets so as to be entitled for depreciation. 3.2 Since section 28 to section 43D relate to computation of business income, which is carried on by assessee, it follows that expenses during pre-commencement period will not be deductible. Similarly loss incurred during period cannot also be treated as business loss. It cannot, therefore, be carried forward. It has been so held in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 (SC) to extent to which such expense could be capitalised to assets, assessee may well be eligible for depreciation as was found in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC). As otherwise such expenses like audit fee would be dead loss. 3.3 business is set up in case of manufacturing concern, when it is ready for production. In case of trader, distinction may not be significant once there are stocks to be sold. In case of professional fact that professional qualifies for practice and is ready to entertain clients would entitle him to claim deduction listed or otherwise... 3.5 As information on significant of accounting policies, it is clearly mentioned that assessee is trader.'Trade', in its primary meaning, is exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money, in its secondary meaning it is repealed activity in nature of business carried on with profit motive, activity being manual or mercantile as distinguished from liberal arts or learned professions or agriculture as held by Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730, 732 (SC). 3.6 In audit report against paragraph 28(a) on Form 3CD it is clearly mentioned that business has not commenced. When no stock is either available or even has been purchased by assessee, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that business has been set up and ready to commence its business. 3.7 In view of above discussion, reply submitted by assessee is not acceptable. As no business activities have been carried out as per audit report, as discussed above, and in view of various decisions, expenses claimed as revenue expenditure are not allowed and loss from business is disallowed and business income is taken at nil. For facts discussed, I am satisfied that assessee-company has concealed particulars of its income/submitted wrong particulars of its income, therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961, are initiated on this account." On appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, after referring to main objectives of business of assessee-company, was of following view: "However, it is noticed that appellant company has not been registered under Shops and Establishments Act during relevant period which is one of essential conditions for setting up of business or for commencement of business in India. It is further noticed that appellant company has not established any store from where sale/purchase or trading of goods could take place. Similarly no warehouse/godown was established during relevant previous year from where intended goods for trading could be stored. No vehicle/transport arrangement was made by appellant company for transportation/delivery/ supply/distribution of goods. No expenditure was found to be incurred on advertisement/publicity of new business of appellant company. It is also noticed that most of key employees were appointed by appellant company, vide letters of appointment issued on January 1, 2008. These key employees have given their acceptance for appointment after end of relevant previous year. On reference, names, designation, date of issue appointment letter and letter of acceptance by these employees are given below: Date of Date of Name of issue of Post acceptance of employee appointment appointment letter Eric Bouin Director FMCG 1-1-2008 4-7-2008 Bouzeneth Merchandise 16-7- 1-1-2008 Benauda director 2008 Business date Lyderich Development 1-1-2008 4-7-2008 Jouvenaux manager Director Hard Patrice Breuil 1-1-2008 4-7-2008 goods Dominique Fruit and 1-1-2008 4-7-2008 Coulombel Vegetable Manager It is also noticed that most of correspondence made with intended suppliers were made either before incorporation of appellant company or after end of relevant previous year. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that appellant company has filed some of samples of correspondence with intended suppliers of goods with key employees of appellant company. From perusal of details filed learned authorized representative, it is noticed that FMCG director of appellant company, namely, Mr. Bouin, has raised certain queries with Nestle on June 12, 2007, whereas appellant company itself was incorporated with effect from September 19, 2007. Mr. Bouin himself was appointed by appellant company with effect from January 1, 2008. Thus, it seems that these correspondence were made even before incorporation of appellant company. Similarly, evidences of correspondence regarding queries with purchase of goods from intended suppliers were found to be made in November, 2010. It is further seen that computers and accessories were purchased at fag end of assessment year and number of employees w s also not sufficient to commence business of appellant company. Under these facts and circumstances, I am unable to believe that business of appellant company was established during relevant previous year in absence of any store or outlet for business of trading, warehouse/godowns, transportations, Registration under Shops and Establishments Act and purchase or sale made during relevant previous year, appellant was not in position to discharge its functions as wholesale trader. It has been held by honourable High Court in case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom) that there is distinction between setting up of business and commencement of business. When business is established and is ready to commence business, it can be said that business that is set up. But before, it is ready to commence business, it is not set up. Further, in case of CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (Guj) it was held that word'set up' is equivalent to word 'establishment' but operation for establishment cannot be equated with establishment of unit itself or its setting up. In another case, namely, CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 478 (SC), it was held that unit cannot be said to have been set up unless it is ready to discharge function for which it has been set up. It is only when unit has been put into such shape that it can start functioning as business or as manufacturing organisation that it can be said that unit has been set up. Operations for establishments of unit from very nature of expression can only signify step that have to be taken to establish unit. In present case, it is found that only preliminary enquiries were conducted for purchase of goods and purchasers were neither finalised nor was any order placed during relevant previous year. Therefore, in my opinion, appellant company was not in position to commence its business and business was not fully set up. Since business of appellant company was not set up during relevant previous year, expenses incurred on it cannot be allowed as deduction. Therefore, order of Assessing Officer regarding impugned disallowance of Rs. 8,64,07,610 is hereby confirmed." appellant-assessee filed appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal, after noting facts and position of law, was of view that business of trader can be said to be set up when assessee makes purchase subsequently to owning/leasing of either shop or warehouse and in facts of present case evidently assessee has not made any purchase or rented any shop premises from where sale could take place or for that matter rented any house where purchased goods intended to be sold can be stored. Tribunal eventually held that it could not be said that business of assessee has been set up as is requirement of proviso to section 3 of Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for appellant-assessee submits that appellantassessee has set up its business in relevant previous year and same was evidenced by way of (a) correspondence with Indian suppliers, (b) incorporation of company, (c) hiring of personnel, (d) opening of bank account, (e) registration under Shops and Establishments Act. It is appellant's case that its business was thus set up during relevant previous year as appellant was ready to commence business although actual commencement of business did not take place during that year. appellant challenged order of Tribunal and authorities below as being totally perverse as authorities below had proceeded on premise related to actual commencement of business by overlooking fact that relevant consideration is whether business has been set up or not. According to learned counsel for appellant, Tribunal has erred in holding that business of trader is set up when such trader makes purchase subsequent to owning/leasing of either shop or warehouse and since such requirements were not fulfilled in appellant's case, its business could not be said to have been set up during relevant previous year. According to learned counsel for appellant, since incorporation, appellant company had been undertaking activities relating to planning, meeting with prospective suppliers, marketing/business development in India, etc., and for this purpose, appellant company set up office and facilities, hired professional employees and directors, initiated negotiations with suppliers for supply of products, etc. During relevant previous year, appellant company acquired leased office premises with effect from October 1, 2007. appellant company also opened its bank account on October 4, 2007, and incurred routine business expenses such as legal and professional charges, travel and conveyance, meeting and conference, salary and wages, etc. During subject assessment year, appellant also employed key employees such as IT director, FMCG director, merchandise director, finance director, accountants other supporting staff, etc., capable of rendering business development, marketing and financial support activities in relation to products proposed to be traded by appellant company. During subject assessment year, appellant company met with number of key suppliers such as Unilever, Colgate, Rasna, Safal, Nestle, Pepsi, Cadbury, etc., to negotiate significant terms of supply contracts. appellant started creating data base of its prospective suppliers or goods in various categories to establish its operations, appellant company also purchased sizeable amount of fixed assets such as computers and softwares (Rs. 33,77,573), office equipment (Rs. 38,64,333), furniture and fittings and leasehold improvements (Rs. 92,30,741), etc., which were essential for carrying on business of appellant company. In view of these facts, appellant company claimed that its business was set up from date of incorporation and its expenses to be allowed as business expenses during relevant assessment year. Only actual sales and purchase of products did not happen during subject financial year which is not necessary condition/activity in order to hold business was set up. learned counsel for assessee has filed compilation of 15 judgments in support of his contentions, which are as under: (i) Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom); (ii) CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 478 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 151 (SC); (iv) Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 25 (Guj); (v) CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. [2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi); (vi) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 347 (Delhi); (vii) CIT v. ESPN Software India P. Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 368 (Delhi); (viii) CIT v. Sauer Danfoss (P.) Ltd. I. T. A. No. 1367 of 2010; (ix) CIT v. Aspentech India (P.) Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 25 (Delhi); (x) CIT v. E Funds International India [2007] 162 Taxman 1 (Delhi); (xi) CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 216 Taxman 76 (Delhi); [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Delhi); (xii) CIT v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 354 (Delhi); (xiii) CIT v. Franco Tosi Ingegneria [2000] 241 ITR 268 (Mad); (xiv) CIT v. Western India Seafood (P.) Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 777 (Guj); and (xv) CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (Guj). On other hand, Mr. Rohit Madan would support judgment of Tribunal and contends that this court would not like to interfere with conclusion arrived at by three authorities. According to him, main objectives of assessee-company in memorandum of association incorporated to carry on trading activities on wholesale basis in all kinds of consumer goods, durables, articles and products. In terms of memorandum of association, business of assessee is of trading on large scale for which assessee requires warehouse to store commodities. In absence of such facility, it cannot be said that assessee had set up business as is requirement of proviso to section 3 of Act. According to him, except correspondence with various potential suppliers, assessee has not been able to show that enquires had culminated in supply of material. Incorporation certificate of company, employment of personnel towards end of previous year were not relevant considerations to show set up of business. Having considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties, question which arises for consideration in present appeal is as to when does assessee is said to have set up its business? It has to be borne in mind that there is distinction between setting up of business and commencement of business. Bombay High Court in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom) has examined concept and noticed difference between commencement and setting up of business by observing (page 157): "The important question that has got to be considered is from which date are expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the'previous year' and for purpose of business previous year begins from date of setting up of business. Therefore, it is only after business is set up that previous year of that business commences and in that previous year expenses incurred in business can be claimed as permissible deductions. Any expenses incurred prior to setting up business would obviously not be permissible deductions because those expenses would be incurred at point of time when previous years of business would not have commenced." Gujarat High Court in subsequent judgment in case of CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (Guj) has held business is said to have commenced as soon as essential activity of that business is started. On question of setting up, following observations are relevant: "A business activity consists of three stages: first stage relates to activity necessary for purpose of acquiring raw material and establishment of plant and machinery and second activity comprises processing and manufacturing by using raw material and plants and machinery set up for purpose and third category consisted of marketing thereof. first in point of time lays foundation for second activity and second activity when completed lays foundation for third activity. Therefore, expenditure incurred for carrying on any of these activities including first activity is also deductible in computing profits and gains of assessee for relevant year when activity is undertaken. In Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 25 (Guj), Gujarat High Court took same view and held that business commences with first activity for acquiring by purchase or otherwise, immovable property. There may be interval between setting up of business and commencement of business. All expenses incurred during that interval are also permissible for deduction. In CIT v. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 151 (SC) decision of Gujarat High Court was affirmed and went step ahead that even activities at preparatory stage is also admissible." On reading of above referred quotations, it is clear that it is only after business is set up, that expenses incurred in business can be claimed as permissible deduction under section 37 of Act. For commencement of business, there must be in place some income generating asset or income earning structure. In several cases, there is gap or interval between setting up and commencement. When business is set up, is mixed question of law and fact and depends upon line, nature and character of business/professional activity. For example, for manufacturing business, purchase of new material or electricity connection may be relevant point to determine setting up but in case of property dealer, moment, he puts up chair and table, or starts talking, his business is set up. present assessee was engaged and incorporated for carrying on trading activities in different commodities. word "trade", even though not defined in Act, is used to denote operations of commercial character by which trader provides to customer for reward, some kind of goods or services. In other words, when trader start providing such goods and services, business is said to have commenced but same may not hold good for set up of business, which is stage before commencement. To set up business, following activities become relevant: "Preparation of business plan; establishment of business premises; research into likely markets or profitability of business; acquiring assets for use in business; registration as entity and under local laws, etc." said list of activities are not exhaustive and facts of each case need to be considered. Indeed purchase of goods would amount to commencement of business, but before said act, spade work and efforts to commence have to be undertaken. trader before actual purchase would possibly interact and negotiate with manufacturers, landlords, conduct due diligence to identify prospective customers, spread awareness, etc. These are all integral part and parcel of business of trader. said activities continue even post-first sale/purchase. When first steps are taken by trader, business is set up, commencement of purchase and then sales is post-set up. There is no dispute about factual aspect of expenses incurred by petitioner. In present case, position of primary objectives of assessee company is also not in dispute. Before we deal with respective submissions of learned counsel for parties, we note hereunder relevant dates showing setting up of business by assessee-company as noted from memo of appeal: Started correspondence with various Indian suppliers 12-6-2007 Incorporation of company 19-9-2007 w.e.f. 19-9- Hiring of personnel 2007 Opening of bank account 4-10-2007 Registration under Shops and Establishments Act w.e.f. 1-1- applied, vide application dated 4-3-2008 and granted, vide 2008 order dated 5-3-2008 In facts of present case, we note that assessee-company was incorporated on September 19, 2007. Even before incorporation, correspondence had been made with well known companies like Nestle, Cadbury, Nivea India Pvt. Ltd., Pepsi, Colgate, Uniliver, etc. It rented out office premises in month of October, 2007. Bank account was opened on October 4, 2007. Employees were also appointed during said period. TDS deduction for said employees was also placed on record. Registration under Shops and Establishments Act was also effected. These activities are first stage activities which would lay foundation for placing orders for procuring stock and storing them in warehouse/ shop followed by third stage of marketing them. Suffice to state for foreign entity without establishing itself under local laws, appointing personnel, identifying prospective manufacturers, clients, etc., obtaining storage facilities followed by stock-in- trade, business of trading cannot commence. Tribunal missed point that assessee as prudent trader could not have made purchases without undertaking aforesaid exercise. said exercise was precursor to commencement but post-set up. aforesaid activities demonstrate setting up of business by appellant-assessee with commitment to commence business. This court in ESPN Software India P. Ltd. (supra) has held as under (page 373 of 30 ITR): "Since assessee has acquired licence on August 15, 1995, and after getting licence, assessee was in position to start business, so, under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that assessee has commenced its business on or after August 15, 1995, and we do not find any infirmity with regard to this finding in order passed by Tribunal." Nothing barred or prevented appellant from making first purchase, after necessary legal approvals but fact that appellant wanted to commence actual trading after negotiations with several parties, would not postpone date when business was set up. In CIT v. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this court, while dealing with case, where assessee-company was incorporated on August 1, 1995, and had filed its return declaring loss of Rs. 3,01,78,033 by debiting expenses of Rs.2,28,85,749 relating to period from August 1, 1995, to March 31, 1996, held that it is well settled position of law that business is nothing more than continuous course of activities and for commencement of business all activities which go to make up business need not be started simultaneously. As soon as activity which is essential activity in course of carrying on business is started, business must be said to have commenced. In said case, it was held that even though incorporated on August 1, 1995, company had acquired licence to commence its business on August 15, 1995, to distribute in India through cable television systems, satellite master antenna systems and DTH, etc., ESPN channels. business is said to have commenced as it was on that day company was in position to start business. Trader has to select products, negotiate with manufacturers, etc., and this is essential and important facet of activities and business of trader. Similarly, this court in CIT v. Aspentech India (P.) Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 25 (Delhi) had agreed with Income-tax Appellate Tribunal wherein Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that for claiming any expenses under section 37(1) of Act what is required to be seen is whether expenses are incurred for purpose of business or not and such expenses are of not capital in nature and are not expressly disallowable under other provisions of Act. Tribunal had also taken into consideration fact that assessee-company has achieved turnover of Rs.4 crores with help of seven employees which clearly indicates that their efforts made in year under consideration has shown fruitful result in succeeding years. Tribunal had also noted that expenses have been incurred after setting up of business. expenses on staff salary paid by appellant-assessee were substantial. For trader, these expenses or deployment of employees at this scale was not necessarily in case business had not been set up. In CIT v. Sauer Danfoss (P.) Ltd. [2012] 22 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi), Division Bench of this court has held as under: "3. There are four other issues raised in present appeal. first issue relates to date on which business of respondent-assessee was set up. Assessing Officer has held that business of respondent- assessee was set up on June 1, 2001. Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses to extent of Rs. 19,37,773, which include salaries, wages, bonus, staff welfare expenses, recruitment and training, etc., for period prior to June 1, 2001. Similar expenses have been also disallowed on power and fuel, i.e., electricity and water. 4. On said aspect/question, we find that Tribunal has dealt with issue in depth and has recorded several factual findings. We would like to reproduce here paragraph 6 of order passed by Tribunal, which reads as under: 'We have considered rival contentions and found from record that assessee-company was duly incorporated on February 5, 2001, under Companies Act, 1956. It has also applied for approval to FIPB, and FIPB, vide approval dated January 24, 2001, allowed for setting up of business in India for various activities. assessee set up its business from April 1, 2001, and was ready to commence its business operation. First director was appointed on February 5, 2001, on date of incorporation and additional directors were appointed on February 10, 2001. It has taken premises on lease with effect from April 1, 2001, physical possession of which was already taken with effect from February 15, 2001. It opened its bank account with Dutche Bank in March first week wherein first remittance was received on February 9, 2001. It is quite clear from these activities of assessee-company that it has set up its business and was ready to commence on April 1, 2001. There is no dispute to well settled legal proposition that at point of time, assessee is in complete state of readiness to undertake its activity, it can be said that it has set up its business, actual commencement of business may be at later date. trading business of assessee was ready to commence upon set up of requisite infrastructure, i.e., acquisition of place of business, commencement of hiring of suitable personnel, identifying clients, opening bank account, etc., which enabled assessee to carry out its object clause. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench in case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. [2008] 19 SOT 593 (Delhi) observed that there may be interregnum (sic) between setting up of business and date of commercial commencement of business, but under Income-tax Act, all expenses incurred after date of setting up of business are to be allowed as deduction while computing income under section 28. hon'ble Bench in this case held that where assessee-company has appointed branch manager and regional manager in 1995, paid salaries including provident fund contribution, etc., beginning from November, 1995, its business can be said to be set up from November 1, 1995, i.e., date on which company was in position to commence its business, and not on February 1, 1996, when its bank account was opened. instant case before us is at more sound footing where even bank account was opened prior to April 1, 2001, and assessee has claimed expenditure only after it has set up its business which was ready for commencement. Merely because assessee entered into agreement with DHL on May 21, 2001, which was to be operative from June 1, 2001, date on which assessee took over running business of DHL, it cannot be said that it has set up its business only on June 1, 2001, and not from April 1, 2001. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in action of lower authorities for not allowing expenditure incurred after April 1, 2001. Assessing Officer is at liberty to verify that expenditure to be allowed should be restricted to revenue expenditure. We direct accordingly.'" In CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P. Ltd. [2013] 216 Taxman 76/34 taxmann.com 18 (Delhi); [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Delhi), Division Bench of this court has held as under (page 686): "The Tribunal has observed that having regard to business of "The Tribunal has observed that having regard to business of assessee, which is development of real estates, participation in tender represents commencement of one activity which would enable assessee to acquire land for development. If assessee is in position to commence business, that means business has been set up. acts of applying for participation in tender, borrowing of monies for interest from holding company, deposit of borrowed monies on same day with NGEF Ltd. as earnest money were all acts which clearly establish that business had been set up. commencement of real estate business would normally start with acquisition of land or immovable property. When assessee whose business it is to develop real estates, is in position to perform certain acts towards acquisition of land, that would clearly show that it is ready to commence business and, as corollary, that it has already been set up. actual acquisition of land is result of such efforts put in by assessee; once land is acquired assessee may be said to have actually commenced its business which is that of development of real estate. actual acquisition of land may be first step in commencement of business, but section 3 of Act does not speak of commencement of business, it speaks only of setting up of business. When assessee, in present case, was in position to apply for tender, borrowed money for interest albeit from its holding company and deposited same with NGEF Ltd. on same day, it shows that assessee's business had been set up and it was ready to commence business. learned senior standing counsel for Revenue would, however, state that till land is acquired, business is not set up. difficulty in accepting argument is that assessee may not be successful in acquiring land for long period of time though he is ready to commence his business in real estate, and that would result in expenses incurred by him throughout that period not being computed as loss under head'Business' on ground that he is yet to set up his business. That would be unacceptable position. other argument of learned standing counsel for Revenue that tax auditors of assessee have themselves pointed out that assessee is yet to commence its business is also irrelevant because of distinction between commencement of business and setting-up of same." This court in CIT v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 354 (Delhi) agreed with findings of Tribunal and dismissed appeal filed by Revenue. relevant finding of Tribunal is as under (page 356): "6. In view of above, business of assessee could be said to have been set up on September 3, 1995, as prior to this necessary agreements had been entered into, key personnel had been recruited and assessee- company had started working necessary infrastructure like office premises, office equipment, etc., and assesseecompany was ready to commence trading operation as on date of incorporation, viz., August 3, 1995. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed allow revenue expenditure incurred after setting up of business which was September 3, 1995, notwithstanding fact that commercial operations started with effect from October 1, 1995. For purpose of claiming expenditure incurred thereafter, as revenue expenditure, reliance are placed on following decisions." aforesaid decisions affirm and reflect view and findings recorded by us, to justify reversal of findings of Tribunal and authorities. law being well settled, it may not be necessary to deal with all judgments relied upon by appellant. We may only state here that orders of authorities below do not indicate that it was case of Revenue that assessee has claimed deduction of expenditure, prior to setting up of business. We, accordingly, answer substantial question of law in favour of appellant and against Revenue. order of Tribunal dated August 16, 2013, is set aside. appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. *** Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax