Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Builders (P.) Ltd.

299 ITR 88High Court2008#15627 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250(6)Section 270A Section 37

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Builders (P.) Ltd.

AXA PARENTERALS LIMITED,UP vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

…h-gears (P) Ltd., (1996) 222 ITR 772, 794 (Punj) (amount paid to the Punjab State Electricity Board for delay in delivery of goods has been held deductible because the same was not on account of infraction of any law]. (3) CIT v. S.A. Builders P. Ltd., (2008) 299 ITR 88, 90, 91 (Pun), following CIT v Murari Lal Ahuja & Sons, (1989) 177 ITR 228 (Punj); CIT v. indo Asian Switch gears (P) Ltd., (1196) 222, ITR (Punj) [compensation for breach of contractual obligations held deductible) (4) Hind Mercantile Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1963) 49 ITR 23 (Mad.). Damages for Breach of contract for export of goods before declaration…

ITO, WARD- 3(3), NEW DELHI vs. ASB DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5542/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

…In view of the above, it is held that the said amount was paid for breach of a contractual obligations (and is not in the nature of penalty of infraction of law) is allowable in view of the decision of P&H High Court in the case of CIT v. S.A. Builders [2008] 299 ITR 88 (P&H), which held as follows: “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Forfeiture of assessee's security deposits by way of compensation for not completing contract work within stipulated period specified in agreement, constituted an allowable commercial loss and deduction on that account could be not…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SPORTINA PAYCE INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1630/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 40

…ure of the assessee to complete the contract, i.e., for breach of contract. The Ld CIT(A) has taken support of following decisions in order to come to the conclusion that the said expenditure is allowable as deduction:- (a) CIT Vs. S.A builders (p) Ltd (2008)(299 ITR 88)(P & H). In this case the security deposit forfeited by way of compensation for not completing the contract was held to be allowable as deduction as normal commercial loss. (b) CIT vs. R.D.Sharma & Co. (1982)(137 ITR 333)(Bom). In this case, the compensation paid for delay in completion of building contract is held to be deductible. 4 M/s. Sport…

DCIT CEN CIR 23 CEN RG -7, MUMBAI vs. THAKUR ESTATE DEVELOPMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-23 M/S Thakur Estate Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ashok Nagar, Churchgate, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400101 Pan No. Aaact5599A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rajan.R. Vora, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan.R. Vora, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…6.3 The Ld. counsel submits that payment of damage for breach of contract as in the present case is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Hans Machoo & Co. 247 ITR 79 (Del), CIT v. SA Builder Pvt. Ltd. 299 ITR 88 (P&H) and CIT v. Murari Lal Ahuja & Sons 177 ITR 228 (P&H). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for decision are given below. The facts in detail have been delineated hereinbefore. We mention below the crucial facts for adjudication of the present case: a) MIDC staked a claim on certain…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154

…4 ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2005-06 ii. Airport Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 340 ITR 407 (Delhi); iii. Jamna Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 299 ITR 92 (P&H); iv. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.A. Builders (P.) Ltd., 299 ITR 88 (P&H). The ld. AR submitted that thus, in view of the facts of the case and various case laws the action of Assessing Officer in making disallowance of expenditure towards payment of compensation holding it to be capital in nature is beyond the scope of proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. The ld. AR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of…

FIRDOSH NOSHIR ANKLESARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5490/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria Ito 17(2)(4) 5 Gr Floor, Kaka Bldg, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ 649 Firdoshi Rd. Dadar R.No. 220 4Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400014 Lalbaug, Mumbai-40013 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapa6428N Appellant By Shri Neel Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By Shri A.K. Dhondial (Dr)

Section 133(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,F ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria ITO 17(2)(4) 5 GR Floor, Kaka Bldg, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ 649 Firdoshi Rd. Dadar R.No. 220 4th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400014 Lalbaug, Mumbai-40013 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAAPA6428N Appellant by Shri Neel Khandelwal (AR) Revenue by Shri A.K. Dhondial (DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Da…