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)

M/S. M. Ahuja Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. The ACIT, (Central)-II, Bhopal

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 48/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(iii)

…the capital of the partners/proprietor being more than the interest free short term advances, has in the case of CIT v. Vijay Solvex Ltd. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 294 (Raj.) while relying on the judgment rendered in (a) S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC); (b), Munjal Sales Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 298 ITR 298/168 Taxman 43 (SC); (c), CIT V. Radico Khaitan Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 354/142 Taxman 681 (All); (d), CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 (Delhi); (e), CIT V. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2006] 280 ITR 525/ [2005] 148 Taxman 654 (Cal.) and (f) CIT v. Motor…

Shri Krunal Vasantray Babariya, Dhoraji vs. The Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 46/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46/Rjt/2020 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 Krunal Vasantray Babariya, Vs. Assistant Commissioner National Export Industries, Income Tax-2(1), Upleta Road, Rajkot. Dhoraji, Gujarat-360410. Pan: Agtpb2925Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep K. Adesara, A.R Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep K. Adesara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…d that the investment was made for business purposes therefore interest cost on the borrowing should be allowed. The assessee in this A.Y. 2016-17 5 regard also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1. 12. The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that investment in the shares of a private company is going to generate dividend income which cannot be treated as business activity of the assessee. Accordingly, the interest cost incurred cannot be held for the purposes of the business. The AO also found that the facts in…

DCIT- CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3283/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…rantee commission and even otherwise it was for (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. direct or indirect commercial interest of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee has not received any income out of the said transaction and the same would not be categorized as an international transaction. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and relied on the various decisions which has held the tran…

DCIT CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3282/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…rantee commission and even otherwise it was for (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. direct or indirect commercial interest of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee has not received any income out of the said transaction and the same would not be categorized as an international transaction. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and relied on the various decisions which has held the tran…

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2384/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…rantee commission and even otherwise it was for (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. direct or indirect commercial interest of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee has not received any income out of the said transaction and the same would not be categorized as an international transaction. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and relied on the various decisions which has held the tran…

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2383/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…rantee commission and even otherwise it was for (A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. direct or indirect commercial interest of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee has not received any income out of the said transaction and the same would not be categorized as an international transaction. 14. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and relied on the various decisions which has held the tran…

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik ACIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/o S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AFLPP6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /D…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Jabalpur vs. Anand Mining Corporation, Jabalpur

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…Delhi High Court has held that an allow ability and reasonableness of an expenses has to be looked from the angle of prudent businessman. This observation of the Delhi High Court has been approved by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v CIT 288 ITR 1 . Further in the case of CIT v Rajkumar Mills Ltd [1982] 135 ITR 811, the hon'ble MP high Court has held that compensation paid on account of short packing of controlled cloth is an allowable expense. Similar in the case of CIT v Peico Electronic [1992] 107 CTR 240 ,the hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that compensation paid in respect of busin…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…• Wanbury Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No. 2587/Mum/2019) dated 25 April 2022 (b) No disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when loan given to subsidiary due to commercial expediency and for business purpose of the Appellant: • S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (2007) (288 ITR 1) (SC) • PCIT vs V.S. Dempo Holding Pvt Ltd (2021) (130 taxmann.com456) • (Bombay HC) • Macrotech Developers Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.5021, 5022/Mum/2019) dated 23 May 2022 • Deepak Shah vs ACIT (ITA No. 7032/Mum/2019) dated 22 December 2021. 13. We find the Honble Tribunal in the assessee own case in ITA. No.42/Mum/2020 for A.Y.2009-10 dated 27- 08-202…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Jabalpur Hospital & Research Center, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 19/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)

…oundation the assessee company is deriving benefit and the assessee has given the interest free advance to Global Foundation as a measure of commercial expediency (υ) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 has held as under in para 33on page 9 of the report: - 33....xxx... The correct view in our opinion was whether the amount advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party was advanced as a measure of commercial expediency. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. (supra) that the int…

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1121/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…rcles in India. Further the loans have been given out of commercial expediency. The Ld D.R did not object to this factual aspect. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd (288 ITR 1), wherein it is held that once it is established that interest free loans has been advanced to a sister concern on account of commercial expediency, the interest paid on loans taken by the assessee cannot be disallowed. Since the facts are being identical, following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate benches, we set aside the order passed by…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO expenditure, that claim has to be seen from the view point of assessee and not the revenue. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC), Easter Investment Ltd. 20 ITR 1 (SC) and Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). The ld. ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that his case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2005) 147 Taxman 355 wherein the Hon’ble High Cou…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO expenditure, that claim has to be seen from the view point of assessee and not the revenue. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC), Easter Investment Ltd. 20 ITR 1 (SC) and Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). The ld. ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that his case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2005) 147 Taxman 355 wherein the Hon’ble High Cou…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO expenditure, that claim has to be seen from the view point of assessee and not the revenue. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC), Easter Investment Ltd. 20 ITR 1 (SC) and Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). The ld. ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that his case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2005) 147 Taxman 355 wherein the Hon’ble High Cou…

Ila Sanat Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2506/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ing activity and that there is no reason why the assessee would lend money at a lower rate (3%) while paying interest at a higher rate (9%). The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 where the Hon’ble Court has opined that the correct test in such a case is whether the advance made is as a measure of commercial expediency. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire loss of Rs.32,63,090/- and brought to tax the income against which such loss was set off. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Th…

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…efore the ITAT pointed out that it is not entitled to the deduction of the interest expenditure on such loan liability even if otherwise allowable by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v/s. CIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 1(SC). 11. The second aspect of levy of penalty is regarding repair and maintenance expenses claimed by assessee of ₹ 12,90,040/-, the learned Counsel for the assessee before us, stated that the assessee earned rental income from letting out of its premise to its three subsidiary companies i.e. MSETCL, MSPGCL and MSGEDCL. The MSEB Holding Company Ltd…

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…efore the ITAT pointed out that it is not entitled to the deduction of the interest expenditure on such loan liability even if otherwise allowable by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v/s. CIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 1(SC). 11. The second aspect of levy of penalty is regarding repair and maintenance expenses claimed by assessee of ₹ 12,90,040/-, the learned Counsel for the assessee before us, stated that the assessee earned rental income from letting out of its premise to its three subsidiary companies i.e. MSETCL, MSPGCL and MSGEDCL. The MSEB Holding Company Ltd…

DCIT Central 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Agni Estates&Foundation Pvt.Ltd, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 356/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.355/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.356/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Agni Estates & Foundations Pvt.Ltd, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) 76, Temple Towers, North Mada Street, Vs. Chennai-34. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7990-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arises Out Of Common Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] On 31.01.2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By The Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Common. The Grounds Raised By Revenue In Ay 2013-14 Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.AR

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

…addition of Rs.2,04,45,076/- made towards disallowance of interest on borrowed capital u/s.36(1)(iii) proportional to amount advanced to sister concerns. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Supreme court decision in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd Vs CIT and another 288 ITR 1(SC) in deleting the disallowance of interest made u/s.36(1)(iii) , in which it was held that the interest on amount lent to sister concerns out of interest bearing funds is allowable only it was done as a measure of commercial expediency (i.e) for the purpose of business. But the assessee in the instant case has demonstrated neither before the asse…

DCIT Central 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Agni Estates&Foundation Pvt.Ltd, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 355/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.355/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.356/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Agni Estates & Foundations Pvt.Ltd, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) 76, Temple Towers, North Mada Street, Vs. Chennai-34. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7990-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arises Out Of Common Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] On 31.01.2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By The Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Common. The Grounds Raised By Revenue In Ay 2013-14 Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.AR

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

…addition of Rs.2,04,45,076/- made towards disallowance of interest on borrowed capital u/s.36(1)(iii) proportional to amount advanced to sister concerns. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the Supreme court decision in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd Vs CIT and another 288 ITR 1(SC) in deleting the disallowance of interest made u/s.36(1)(iii) , in which it was held that the interest on amount lent to sister concerns out of interest bearing funds is allowable only it was done as a measure of commercial expediency (i.e) for the purpose of business. But the assessee in the instant case has demonstrated neither before the asse…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…/s. Chadha Power (ITA No. 3055/Del/2018), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal observed and held as under:- 9 “8. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) has referred to the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1. As regards the applicability of section 40(a)(i), Id. CIT(A) observed that first of all, expenses claimed in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' towards royalty, fee for technical services or other sum chargeable under the Act which is payable outside India or in India to a non- resident on…

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

M/S. M. Ahuja Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. The ACIT, (Central)-II, Bhopal

Shri Krunal Vasantray Babariya, Dhoraji vs. The Asst. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot

DCIT- CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

Acg Assocation Capsules P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Jabalpur vs. Anand Mining Corporation, Jabalpur

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Jabalpur Hospital & Research Center, Jabalpur

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

Ila Sanat Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Central 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Agni Estates&Foundation Pvt.Ltd, Chennai

DCIT Central 2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Agni Estates&Foundation Pvt.Ltd, Chennai

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi