S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

269 ITR 535High Court2004#15501 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

Kadam Reality Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions as above

ITA 1793/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…e interest free surpluses. Where the money borrowed was diverted for giving interest free loans, the proportionate interest attributable to such loans could be legitimately disallowed by the Assessing Officer. It was so held in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H). Further, this view was accepted in CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1971] 187 I.T.A No. 1793/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 6 Kadam Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITR 363 (All) in a case, where money was borrowed for purposes of business, but advanced at a concessional rate to its directors, so that the High Court upheld the inference of…

Diamond Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 346/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.R

Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 346/AHD/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Diamond Textiles Mills V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd. 201, Nikol road, 1 (1)(4), Ahmedabad Opp. Thakkarbapa Nagar, Ahmedabad-382 350 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD 3997L Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, C.A Respondent by : Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 11 -10-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10 -12-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assess…

The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amjay Medi-Max India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2695/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…us by the Assessing Officer the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is not justified. Interest free advances given for commercial expediency not to be disallowed held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd.-vs-CIT reported in (2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H) was also taken into consideration by the Learned CIT(A). In light of the above discussion, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority so as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmation i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Prasanna Purple Mobility Solutions Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…ssion. Where the money borrowed was diverted for giving interest free loans to subsidiaries, the proportionate interest attributable to such loans could be legitimately disallowed by the Assessing Officer. It was so held to in S A Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 535 (P & H). The assessee in the present case has not be able to bring any material on record to indicate the purpose or the commercial expediency for advancing the aforesaid amount and the benefits accruing out of said advances is apparently not shown to have served any business purpose of the assessee. Thus when the assessee borrows money for purpo…

Kuloday Technopack P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…(Del), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All), Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (1991) 190 ITR 349 (All), S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H), CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (1993) 110 CTR (All) 23: (1993) 201 ITR 181 (All), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (Bom) 344: (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom), Elmer Havell Electrics & Ors. vs. CIT & Anr. (2005) 197 CTR (Del) 316 : (2005) 277…

Arun Kumar Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 871/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 142Section 143Section 37(1)

…0,09,156/- and added back to the total income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. He has placed reliance on these case laws, CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 001 and Elmer Havell Electricals Vs. CIT, 227 ITR 549, S.A. Builders Ltd. V. CIT (2004) 269 ITR 535. I agree with the contention of the Assessing Officer, he has rightly disallowed interest amounting to Rs.47650/-, I sustain the addition. Appeal on this ground is dismissed.” 7. Ld. AR submitted that the debit balances were brought forward from the last year and there was no nexus between the amounts borrowed and advances given. He submitted t…