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 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 367,181 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 14A Section 1961 Section 148 Section 147 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediency interest free advances section 36(1)(iii)business expediency disallowance of interest expenditure section 36(1)section 36 revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 capital expenditure section 14a

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

Enn Vee Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 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 Realtime Marketing & ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 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 vi…

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

ITA 1839/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 28, Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

…investment made in the partnership firm by the partner at Rs.1.05 Cr. In our view, it is purely a transaction of 9 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh commercial expediency. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders-vs.- CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has dealt with this expression and has held to be an expression 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 obligation but it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. Thus,…

Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1748/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Beacon Higher Education Vs. Dcit, Services Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), S-40, 2Nd Floor, Vasant Square Delhi Mall, Plot No. A, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaecb1283F

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

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

…xpediency, there is absolutely no scope for making disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance in this regard had been rightly placed by the ld. AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the loan borrowed from IFCI had been utilized only for the purpose of business by the assessee company. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that there cannot be any disallowance of interest on borrowed funds u/s…

Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

…s contention that the funds were used by the sister concern for the purpose of its business; that the Commissioner had also rightly held that the judgement of the Supreme Court in 'SA Builders Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Another', (2007) 288 ITR 1 SC supported the assessee's case; that the only adverse finding by the AO was that the advance did not appear to be for business purposes, as the assessee company had no business dealing with the company M/s Kolkata Hotel; that this view was demonstrately not sustainable; that the Commissioner, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the a…

M/S Midas Shelters Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 287/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…reas the relevant factual position speaks otherwise. His further case is that it was a clear-cut case of “commercial expediency” wherein the assessee had made interest free advances to it’s related parties squarely covered by S.A Builders vs. CIT(A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 3 ITA.No.287/PUN./2024 5. The assessee’s last submission before us is if one more effective innings is granted before the CIT(A), he would plead and prove all the relevant facts so as to rebut the corresponding findings in the Assessing Officer’s impugned penalty order. 6. Faced with this situation and in light of the clinching fact tha…

Divyanidhi Buildcon Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

…he Capital Contribution in AOP is purely on account of commercial expediency and there is no personal element involved. Interest paid on money borrowed for investment as a measure of commercial expediency is allowable as laid down in SA. Builders Ltd. v/s CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). It is purely a business venture and investment in business venture cannot be said to be not for the purposes of business. Whether assessee charges interest or not is not 10 Divyanidhi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO material, only relevant issue is whether it is for purposes of business. It is not an interest free Loan- It is Capital Contribution…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6191/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

…bsequent assessment years have been deleted by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Thus, he submitted, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Further, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC); 2. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 9606 of 2011)(SC); 3. CIT(LTU) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC); 4. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 379 ITR 347/63 taxmann.com 308/ [2016] 236 Taxman 447 (SC); 5. Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 298/168 Taxman 43 (SC); 6. Principal Commissioner…

Escorts Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5552/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

Sukhma Sons & Associates, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 63, New Delhi

ITA 318/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: due date as per Haryana Labour Welfare Act.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…its sister concerns were for any commercial expediency. The Ld. AO had also specifically mentioned that there was no business transaction between the appellant/assessee and its sister concerns whom loans/advances were given. In the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (288 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered an almost identical situation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the amount has been advanced as a measure of commercial expediency, the interest on funds borrowed by the assessee should be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival parties and considered the mat…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Prathyusha Global Trade Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the petition filed by assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is dismissed

ITA 638/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…e have no hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. AO thereby setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The case laws relied on the by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders v. CIT (Appeals), [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) is of no help to the assessee. Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed. 7. Grounds No. 3, 4 & 5 are with respect to disallowance of depreciation. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has claimed the expenditure incurred for the ponds as capital expenditure and has claimed depreciation @ 100% on the same. The Ld. AO…

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…n was made in view of requirements of JA.F7.A Rules. Based on the aforesaid factual background, the submissions of the assessee on benchmarking of interest is as under:‖ 12. The Ld.AR relied on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd 288 ITR 1 (SC). The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:- ―34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CITv. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] '. ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cann…

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Company Circle-II(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 805/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.805/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Express Publications (Madurai) P. Ltd, Vs. Dcit No.29, Express Garden, Company Circle Ii (1) Second Main Road Industrial Estate, Now Corporate Circle 2 (1) Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 0842D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Abirami Narendranath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Saujanya Ranjan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Abirami Narendranath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40a

…st bearing and non-interest bearing funds and there is no reason to presume that interest bearing funds were diverted to group companies. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC); the decision CIT (LTU) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC); & the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Hotel Savera (1999) 239 ITR 795 (Mad). The assessee emphasize that in a case where the assessee has common funds then in such a case, in the absence of any material to indicate that the assessee has advanced monie…

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Signature Tower – A, Circle – 4(1) 14Th Floor, South City New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana Pan No. Aaacy 0460 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Shri J. P. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.1020/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Gurgaon In Appeal No. 314/17-18 Dated 20.11.2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 14.12.2017 By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

…the Appellant. 2.1 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that expenditure incurred was to promote the business interest of the Appellant and was in line with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant without giving proper opportunity. 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.21,73,500/- on computer software & security systems. 5. That on facts and c…