(i) S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

359 ITR 644High Court2013#7143 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

legal expensessection 24(b)house property incomesection 33cost of improvementshort term capital gainssection 48interest u/s 234ashort term capital gainlong term capital gainsconcealment of incomesection 234a

Judgments citing (i) S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…d upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 2 79 ITR 552 (Guj) CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi 4.4. The facts of the case and the submissions are co…

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…d upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 2 79 ITR 552 (Guj) CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi 4.4. The facts of the case and the submissions are co…

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…d upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 2 79 ITR 552 (Guj) CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi 4.4. The facts of the case and the submissions are co…

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…d upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 2 79 ITR 552 (Guj) CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi 4.4. The facts of the case and the submissions are co…

DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PCI LTD., NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7959/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…his case. 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the impugned order relevant to the issue under consideration and also relied upon the following decisions: (i) S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 01 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Spencers& Co. Ltd. & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad.); (ii) CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT Vs. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 482 (Del.); (iv) Kejriwal Enterprises &Anr. Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 341 (Cal) 6. Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs.2,18,26,743/- made by AO under…

PCI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7302/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R
Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…his case. 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the impugned order relevant to the issue under consideration and also relied upon the following decisions: (i) S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 01 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Spencers& Co. Ltd. & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad.); (ii) CIT Vs. Phil Creations Ltd. &Anr. 244 CTR (Bom.) 226; (iii) CIT Vs. Tulip Star Hotel Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 482 (Del.); (iv) Kejriwal Enterprises &Anr. Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 341 (Cal) 6. Having heard the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs.2,18,26,743/- made by AO under…

SAGAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 956/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ness and/or professional purpose. Interest on capital borrowed for investment in shares was deductible.” 10 ITA.No.956/Del./2019 M/s. Saga Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8.2. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs., Spencers And Co. Ltd., [2013] 359 ITR 644 (Mad.) held as under : “(iv) That the appellate authorities found that the investment made in shares by the assessee utilising borrowed capital was for strategic business purposes because the companies were promoted as special purpose companies to strengthen and promote its existing business by combining different business segments and, therefor…

ACMEVAC PUMPS & ENGG. PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ACIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5155/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

…tion with transfer of property and hence, allowable as deduction. In this connection, he has relied upon the following judgements:- 137 ITR 846 (Mad) CIT v A Venkataraman & Ors. 160 ITR 840 (Del) CIT v Shankuntala Rajeshwar 234 ITR 95 (AP) Naozar Chenoy v CIT 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v Spencers and Co. Ltd 242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT v Miss Piroja C Patel 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT v Eagle Theatres 298 ITR 268 (Kar) Mrs. June Perrett v ITO 87 TTJ 273 (Mum-Trib) Ketan Bolonjkar v ACIT 35 ITD 285 (Mum-Trib) Chimanlal Paper Co. P Ltd. v ITO 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.D…

ACIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TATVA GLOBAL ENVIORNMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6958/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm) & Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 37

…ose vehicles formed to execute specific projects. Thus, the allegation of the AO that assessee has diverted and applied borrowed funds in non- business activities do not hold any water. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs Spencer & Co. Ltd. 359 ITR 644 have held that the interest on borrowed capital were investments in shares utilizing borrowed capital for strategic business purposes in companies promoted as special purpose to strengthen and promote assessee’s existing business interest was allowable. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High court of Madras in the case of RPG Transmissions…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) , CHENNAI vs. TAMILNADU SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2055/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…iency when they are in need for the same for their running of the business. We have perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel. We also find that similar decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. 359 ITR 644. No material was adduced by the Department to show that the borrowed capital was utilized by the assessee for non-business purposes. Under the above facts and circumstances and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. RPG Transmissions (supra), we delete t…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) , CHENNAI vs. TAMILNADU SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2054/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…iency when they are in need for the same for their running of the business. We have perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel. We also find that similar decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. 359 ITR 644. No material was adduced by the Department to show that the borrowed capital was utilized by the assessee for non-business purposes. Under the above facts and circumstances and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. RPG Transmissions (supra), we delete t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.462/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ment with the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and concur with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. In our judgment in the tax case appeal in T. C. (A.) No. 1980 of 2008, (since reported in CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No.3 (2013] 359 ITR 644 (Mad) which was heard along with these appeals and disposed of today, we have elaborately discussed the issue relating to payment of interest on borrowed capital and the reasons given by us in the said judgment for sustaining the order of the Tribunal are also applicable to the present appeals. :- 10 -: We have carefully scrutinized the reasons g…

FUTURE IDEAS CO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT -9, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…nts in group concerns is allowable as business expenditure under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was, inter alia, placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Spencers & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 673 (Mad). 4.2.7 The learned A.R. of the assessee further contended that without prejudice to the above submissions, no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act, if the AO adopts one of the possible methods/ courses of action/conclusions permissible in law. The mere fact that the…

FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIMPLETON INVESTRADE PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT -9, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…nts in group concerns is allowable as business expenditure under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was, inter alia, placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Spencers & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 673 (Mad). 4.2.7 The learned A.R. of the assessee further contended that without prejudice to the above submissions, no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act, if the AO adopts one of the possible methods/ courses of action/conclusions permissible in law. The mere fact that the…

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…ee should be allowed as deduction. Apart from this, the assessee also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs RPG Transmissions Ltd reported in 359 ITR 673 (Mad) ; CIT vs Spencers and Co. Ltd (No. 3) reported in 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs Spencers and Co. Ltd (No. 2) reported in 359 ITR 630 (Mad). The assessee also drew the attention of Clause 17 of the Memorandum of Association of the subsidiary company M/s Confident Solar Pvt Ltd which is reproduced below:- “17. To establish, or concur in establishing or promoting any company or companies for the purpose of acqu…

SHIVHARI AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5637/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…ct the renovation cost giving flimsy reasons for same. The ld AR also cited some decisions namely:- (i) ITO Vs Late Shri Hirendra Singh Baccha Singh ITA No 4635 & 4636/M/2011 (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 (iii) CIT Vs Spencer & Co Ltd 359 ITR 644(Mad) (iv)JCIT Vs Raj kumar Aggarwal & Sons 95IIJ315 (Del ITAT) 5 Shivhari Agarwal, Vs. ACIT (v) ITO Vs Lalitaben B. Kapadia 115 IIJ 938 Mum ITAT. The ld Counsel eventually prayed for allowing the appeal of the assessee as the action of both the authorities were just based on suspicion, conjectures and hypothesis. On the other hand the ld. DR…