S.A.BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),CHAN &ANR
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal and the High Court, holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 32AB. The reasons were the lack of manufacturing activity and insufficient evidence to meet the statutory conditions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in civil construction, claimed deduction under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing and had not provided sufficient material to prove fulfillment of the deduction's conditions.
What were the issues?
Whether a civil construction company is eligible for deduction under Section 32AB, and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to claim the deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.164 citing204 ITR 412 · 1993 · SC
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT KATJU, MARKANDEY J. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA Nos. 8-9 of 2003. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant-assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil construction. It claimed for deduction under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was raised as an additional ground before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). In paragraphs 19-21 of its order dated 20.6.2002 the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee on two grounds. The first ground is that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction and was not carrying on any manufacturing activity. Hence, the claim was not allowable in view of the judgment of this Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co., (1993) 204 ITR 412. The second ground for rejecting the claim was that the claim was not based on facts on record. The deduction under Section 32AB was not automatic and was subject to various conditions laid down in that provision. Whether the assessee fulfilled those conditions for claiming the deduction or not required examination into facts which were not on record. Even before the Tribunal the assessee had not placed any material to show how the assessee is entitled to such deduction. Hence the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim. By the impugned judgment the High Court has agreed with the view of the Tribunal. We have also carefully considered the matter and we are fully in agreement with the Tribunal as well as the High Court. For both the reasons mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraphs 19-21 of its order, we are of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed by it. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
More judgments on Section 32AB
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S. Brooke Bond India Limited, MumbaiITA 99/GTY/2000[1993-94]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2022AY 1993-94
- M/S. Vijay Industries vs Commissioner of Income TaxC.A. No.-001581-001582 - 20051 Mar 2019
- The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs Harsiddh Specific Family TrustTAXAP/1051/200813 Jun 2018
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/S P.S.I Data System LtdITR/3/200126 Sept 2017
- Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala vs M/S Ambey Developer Pvt LtdITA/263/201620 Jul 2017
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026