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.

How many judgments cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT?

1,484 judgments on BharatTax cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 148, Section 147.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1)

ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi vs. Antheia Constructions P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4963/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ply justifying the transfer of funds explaining the business exigencies and also explained that it is done as per the joint venture agreement with NCPL. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). However, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the reliance of the decision of SA Builders Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and assessee has failed to establish the commercial exigency aspect considering the above decision. Accordingly, he determined the proportionate interest expenditure to the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Antheia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2373/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ply justifying the transfer of funds explaining the business exigencies and also explained that it is done as per the joint venture agreement with NCPL. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). However, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the reliance of the decision of SA Builders Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and assessee has failed to establish the commercial exigency aspect considering the above decision. Accordingly, he determined the proportionate interest expenditure to the…

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited ), Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Central Circle2(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 778/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143Section 28Section 36Section 37

…mitted that submissions were made before the learned CIT – A on 18 February 2021 which is placed at page number 307 onwards wherein at page number 316 the assessee has cited the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of SA builders versus CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)and further at page number 317 assessee has submitted that assessee needs time before the learned CIT A of 10 15 days further to supplement the above submission in view of the statutory timeline to file the return of income for assessment year 2020 21 was approaching on 15 February 2021 and further the appellant has filed several VSV applicatio…

Kh Facility Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle--5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 201/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. N. Swapna, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 270A

…e any benefit from these expenses. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the TPO is not empowered to apply benefit test while computing the ALP. It is settled position of law as held by apex court in SA builder reported in 288 ITR 1(SC) that revenue authorities could not sit in the Arm Chair of the an assessee, when it comes to the business decisions to be taken by an assessee in the interest of business. A reference can be made to the following judgements: ITA No.201/Hyd/2022 6 i) Baush and Lomb Eye Care India Pvt. Ltd. 381 ITR 227 (Del) ii) Whirlpool India 381 ITR 154 (Del…

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 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…

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 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…

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the 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…

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co Pvt Ltd (Successor of Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corp RG 6 Chennai, New Building, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.677 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35D

…power projects which were undertaken by different SPVs and thus, the interest expenditure was directly related to the business of the appellant and an allowable expenditure. The appellant has further relied upon various case laws including SA Builders v. CIT 288 ITR 1 to support the contention that the investments made in the subsidiaries were made out of commercial expediency of the appellant company and hence, the interest expenditure should be allowed. 5.3.4 After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to concur with the appellant. The various clauses of the MOA clearly provided th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.677 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35D

…power projects which were undertaken by different SPVs and thus, the interest expenditure was directly related to the business of the appellant and an allowable expenditure. The appellant has further relied upon various case laws including SA Builders v. CIT 288 ITR 1 to support the contention that the investments made in the subsidiaries were made out of commercial expediency of the appellant company and hence, the interest expenditure should be allowed. 5.3.4 After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to concur with the appellant. The various clauses of the MOA clearly provided th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 807/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

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

…worth Rs.2.39 Cr. in the current financial year and, therefore, there is interlinked business interest of two companies and the money has been given for commercial expediency. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders (288 ITR 1).The DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. 14. Upon review of the facts and the judicial precedents presented by the Ld.AR and considering the findings and decision of the Ld.CIT(A), we reach to conclusion that the Ld.AR has demonstrated, with reference to the audited financial statements as of 31-03-2016, that the asse…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 732/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

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

…worth Rs.2.39 Cr. in the current financial year and, therefore, there is interlinked business interest of two companies and the money has been given for commercial expediency. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders (288 ITR 1).The DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. 14. Upon review of the facts and the judicial precedents presented by the Ld.AR and considering the findings and decision of the Ld.CIT(A), we reach to conclusion that the Ld.AR has demonstrated, with reference to the audited financial statements as of 31-03-2016, that the asse…

Oriental Enterprise Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 661/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

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

…worth Rs.2.39 Cr. in the current financial year and, therefore, there is interlinked business interest of two companies and the money has been given for commercial expediency. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders (288 ITR 1).The DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. 14. Upon review of the facts and the judicial precedents presented by the Ld.AR and considering the findings and decision of the Ld.CIT(A), we reach to conclusion that the Ld.AR has demonstrated, with reference to the audited financial statements as of 31-03-2016, that the asse…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…9-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 28 the businessman and dictate how to run its business. Further, In this connection, it is more appropriate to have a glimpse of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court, in its infinite wisdom, had observed thus- "The expression commercial expediency is one of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurr…

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024

Section 36(1)(iii)

…is clause; (iv) to (xviii)…………………………………………. iii)………………………………………….” 7.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) discussed the issue of interest disallowance discussed the issue of interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle Supreme Court is reprod…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024

Section 36(1)(iii)

…is clause; (iv) to (xviii)…………………………………………. iii)………………………………………….” 7.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) discussed the issue of interest disallowance discussed the issue of interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act at length. The relevant finding of Hon’bvle Supreme Court is reprod…

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pragati Power Asst. CIT Corporation Ltd. Circle-20(1) Himadri Rajghat Power Vs. New Delhi House, Office Complex Rajghat New Delhi-110002 PAN:AACCP 8035F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri S. Krishnan, Adv. & Shri Shaurya Jain, CA Respondent by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 14/08/2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the o…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Archean Salt Holdings Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai

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

ITA 78/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.78/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KM.Mohan Dass, C.A IJFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

…e A.O has disallowed excess interest @ 8% incurred as not for business u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) :- 3 -: after examining the nature of loan and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) has held that loan was advanced in commercial expediency for the business purpose and therefore, held to be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act . 4. The Ld. DR relying on the order of A.O argued that the loan advanced was not for the business purpose and therefore, excess interest debited is disallowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Ld…

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…cts. We are of the considered opinion that once business nexus is established then the expenditure incurred in that respect could not be denied to the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 would apply wherein it was held that once commercial expediency is established, the expenditure would be allowable to the assessee. Drawing strength from the same, we would hold that the assessee would be eligible to claim such expenditure. The Ld. AO is directed to allow impugned expenditure of Rs.28.20 Lacs. This issue arises in all the other yea…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…cts. We are of the considered opinion that once business nexus is established then the expenditure incurred in that respect could not be denied to the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 would apply wherein it was held that once commercial expediency is established, the expenditure would be allowable to the assessee. Drawing strength from the same, we would hold that the assessee would be eligible to claim such expenditure. The Ld. AO is directed to allow impugned expenditure of Rs.28.20 Lacs. This issue arises in all the other yea…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…cts. We are of the considered opinion that once business nexus is established then the expenditure incurred in that respect could not be denied to the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 would apply wherein it was held that once commercial expediency is established, the expenditure would be allowable to the assessee. Drawing strength from the same, we would hold that the assessee would be eligible to claim such expenditure. The Ld. AO is directed to allow impugned expenditure of Rs.28.20 Lacs. This issue arises in all the other yea…

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi vs. Antheia Constructions P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Antheia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited ), Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Central Circle2(1), Mumbai

Kh Facility Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle--5(1), Hyderabad

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co Pvt Ltd (Successor of Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corp RG 6 Chennai, New Building, Chennai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited, Chennai

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

Oriental Enterprise Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Archean Salt Holdings Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai