S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

288 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2007#26 most cited

What is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

1,484

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT · 288 ITR 1 · Section 36(1)(iii) · commercial expediency · business expediency · interest-free advances · disallowance of interest · onus to prove business purpose · borrowed funds · Revenue interference

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 74158 Taxmann.com 74

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14ASection 1961Section 148Section 147Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediencyinterest free advancessection 36(1)(iii)business expediencydisallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)section 36revenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37capital expendituresection 14a

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

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…me tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 17 revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to be seen from the point of view of businessman. Here in this case if the inve…

Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…me tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 17 revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to be seen from the point of view of businessman. Here in this case if the inve…

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…me tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 17 revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to be seen from the point of view of businessman. Here in this case if the inve…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…paragraph 4.3.3. to 4.3.5 of the 9 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 order impugned, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builder Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh & Ors.:288 ITR 1 (2006). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other Income Tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authori…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…paragraph 4.3.3. to 4.3.5 of the 9 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 order impugned, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builder Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh & Ors.:288 ITR 1 (2006). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other Income Tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authori…

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…paragraph 4.3.3. to 4.3.5 of the 9 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 order impugned, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builder Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh & Ors.:288 ITR 1 (2006). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other Income Tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authori…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nagpur vs. M/S Raghav Finvest Pvt Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…, wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer cannot step into shoes of a businessman to judge rationale of an expenditure or an investment which was further approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:– i) S.A. Builders v/s CIT, [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); iii) J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v/s CIT, [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC); iv) Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v/s CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC); and v) CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 14 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 12. In the present cases,…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S Nihal Gits Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…, wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer cannot step into shoes of a businessman to judge rationale of an expenditure or an investment which was further approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:– i) S.A. Builders v/s CIT, [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); iii) J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v/s CIT, [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC); iv) Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v/s CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC); and v) CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 14 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 12. In the present cases,…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Vishnu Gilts Pvt.Lt, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…, wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer cannot step into shoes of a businessman to judge rationale of an expenditure or an investment which was further approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:– i) S.A. Builders v/s CIT, [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); iii) J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v/s CIT, [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC); iv) Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v/s CIT, [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC); and v) CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 14 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 12. In the present cases,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 36(1)(iii)

…idiary in the course of business could be reason enough to disallow the interest expense incurred in relation thereto. 6.3.7 It is noted that similar issue had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). In the instant case, the assessee had borrowed capital on which interest was paid. The assessee had granted interest free loans to its subsidiaries and associate concerns. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that part of the interest paid was liable for disallowance since the assessee had diverted its borrowed capital to the subsidiary an…

C S Garments, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Bleandshri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1320/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income C S Garments, V. Tax, 42, Karumarampalayam, Circle -1, Mannari, Tiruppur. Tiruppur – 641 607. [Pan: Aacfc-0719-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 69

….... It needs no reiteration that the settled position in law is that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits". It may be noted that the above decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v CIT(A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held as under: :-8-: ITA. No:1320/Chny/2023 "34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 /TR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee its…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…AO. 31. Admittedly this issue is covered by assessee‟s own case in A.Y.2009-10 in Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT Circle 3(2) & vice versa (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2014 & others) order dated 27/07/2023. The Tribunal by following the decision of SA Builders reported in 288 ITR 1(SC) and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Concentrix Services (I) Pvt. Ltd (2019) 111 taxmann.com 269. Thus, in view of the above, we find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, this ground is decided in favour of the asse…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…AO. 31. Admittedly this issue is covered by assessee‟s own case in A.Y.2009-10 in Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT Circle 3(2) & vice versa (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2014 & others) order dated 27/07/2023. The Tribunal by following the decision of SA Builders reported in 288 ITR 1(SC) and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Concentrix Services (I) Pvt. Ltd (2019) 111 taxmann.com 269. Thus, in view of the above, we find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, this ground is decided in favour of the asse…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…ing funds larger than the investments made in tax-free securities then in such cases, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made. 21. On behalf of Revenue Mr. Arijit Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate refers to SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC), where this Court ruled on issue of disallowance in relation to funds lent to sister concern out of mixed funds. The issue in SA Builders is pending consideration before the larger bench of this Court in Addl.CIT v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 14729 of 2012, dated 7-2-2019]. The counsel therefore, argues that there is no finality on th…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…unds larger than the investments made in tax-free securities then in such cases, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made. 21. On behalf of Revenue Mr. Arijit Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate refers to SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC), where this Court ruled on issue of disallowance in relation to funds lent to sister concern out of mixed funds. The issue in SA Builders is pending consideration before the larger bench of this Court in Addl.CIT v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 14729 of 2012, dated 7-2-2019]. The counsel therefore, argues that there is no finality…

ACIT 3(3)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…g the Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, Mumbai. The assessee paid interest on the borrowed money and claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). The AO rejected the claim, but the CIT (A), Tribunal & High Court (338 ITR 482) allowed it by relying on S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was held that as the assessee, being a holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advanced borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans.” 12.2. The assessee had adv…

ACIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng the Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, Mumbai. The assessee paid interest on the borrowed money and claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). The AO rejected the claim, but the CIT (A), Tribunal & High Court (338 ITR 482) allowed it by relying on S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was held that as the assessee, being a holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advanced borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans." 12.2. The assessee had adva…

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…ngapore). • The purpose of giving advances was in the course of and for the purpose of protecting the interests of business of the company. 6.2.6 The Assessee has next placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v CIT 288 ITR 1, wherein it held that where a holding company borrows loan and advances it to its subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for its business purposes or the amount was advanced to the subsidiary due to commercial expediency, the holding company was entitled to deduction of the interest on the said loan and argued that the expression for the…

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…J.K. Woollen Mfg. vs. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 5. Supporting Case Laws: 5.1In the facts of the present case, a useful reference can be made to the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A),Chandigarhreported in 288 ITR 1 where it was held as under: “18. We have considered the submission of the respective parties. The question involved in this case is only about the allowability of the interest, on borrowed funds and hence we are dealing only with that question. In our opinion, the approach of the High Court as well as the authorities below on the aforesaid question…

Paradise Infrastructure, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 871/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Paradise Infrastructure cuke The ACIT, 407, Paradise, C-61A, Sarojani Vs. Circle-1, Jaipur. Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFP4031B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vk…