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 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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar vs. M/S Max India Ltd

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

ITA/272/2022HC Punjab & Haryana19 Oct 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:136315 -DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) ITA-272-2023 (O&M) Decided on : 19.10.2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar ……Appellant Versus M/s Max India Ltd. ……Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Ms.Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 260A of the…

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-14, New Mdlr Airlines Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Flat No. 4, R. R. Apartment, 3-4, Room No. 354, E-2, Ara Centre, Vs Mehglapuri, Mehruli, Civil Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi- . Lines, New Delhi-110030. 55. (Pan: Aaecm5231C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. For Revenue : Ms Suneeta Verma, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…said decision it was also observed that “it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned”. He also resorted to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held as under: “Expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring in various provisions is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning income'. In view of this judgment, the opinion of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not carrying on any business since there was no activity leading to the earning…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Intervo Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5509/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…any legal obligation yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on ground of commercial expediency. To buttress his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The observations and findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision are extracted as under: “In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning in…

Intervo Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5268/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…any legal obligation yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on ground of commercial expediency. To buttress his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The observations and findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision are extracted as under: “In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning in…

Intervo Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5267/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Nirwan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…any legal obligation yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on ground of commercial expediency. To buttress his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The observations and findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision are extracted as under: “In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning in…

Rajesh Agrawal, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 249/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.249/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Rajesh Agrawal C/O. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel Traders, 15/343, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Acppa2905F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.249/RPR/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Rajesh Agrawal C/o. M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel Traders, 15/343, Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. PAN : ACPPA2905F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of…

Shri Santosh Bhalchandra Powle, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2267/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Santosh Vs. Acit-22(3), Bhalchandra Powle, Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th National House, 3Rd M.K.Road, Floor,27 Raghunath Mumbai-400020. Dadaji Street,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp1107A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Aishwarya Vanikar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Virbhandra Mahjan.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

…he assessee further submits that even otherwise it is a settled law that neither the AO nor the department can sit in the armchair of a businessman in order to substitute their judgement for his judgement in business decisions(Ref. S.A. Builders Vs CIT-(2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). It is also worth noting that even the Tribunal has nowhere expressly dismissed the claim of the assessee that the Shri Santosh Bhalchandra Powle., Mumbai. overdraft facility was utilized for professional purposes nor has affirmed the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard and in fact his order is set aside to that extent. As such, in the humble…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…based on commercial expediency: 1 1. Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) . & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 2 2. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) . 3 3. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) . 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure:” 1. CIT. Shrishti Securities [2010] 321 ITR 498/2009] 183 Taxman 159 (Bom.) 2 CIT v…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…based on commercial expediency: 1 1. Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) . & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 2 2. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) . 3 3. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) . 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure:” 1. CIT. Shrishti Securities [2010] 321 ITR 498/2009] 183 Taxman 159 (Bom.) 2 CIT v…

Sh. Mahendra Singh, Flat No.303, Ashapura Tower, Paota, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…n completely realized in FY 17-18 (PB 19 & 22). Thus otherwise the advances is given in commercial expediency and therefore expenditure incurred on interest is fully allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1. In view of above, disallowance made by the lower authorities be deleted by allowing the ground of assessee.’’ 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) 2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO o…

Ntt India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/Tax/ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

…aken to meet the competition prevalent in the market and to stave off the competitors. This is the domain of the businessman and the Transfer Pricing Officer has no say in the matter. As held by the Supreme Court in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007] 289 ITR 26 (SC) the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to place itself in the arm chair of businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is the reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 13 NTT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFCA, New Delhi 22. Even rule TOB(T)a) does not authorize disallowan…

Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 114/10 (Ligh), Gandhi Road, V. Income Tax, West Tambaram, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 045. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagps-0396-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 69B

…godown and the same was given on rent by the assessee. Therefore once commercial expediency for giving the advance is established, no part of the interest expenditure can be disallowed in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 where it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. If further held that no businessman…

M/S Pragathi Green Meadows & Resorts Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. A.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No.13/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.265/Hyd/2013) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dy.Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Pragati Green Tax, Meadows and Resorts Pvt. Circle 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN : AACCP5283H. (Applicant/Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Asst.Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle 16(3), Hyderabad. PAN : AACCP5283H. (A…

ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad vs. M/S Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. A.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No.13/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.265/Hyd/2013) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dy.Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Pragati Green Tax, Meadows and Resorts Pvt. Circle 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN : AACCP5283H. (Applicant/Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Asst.Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle 16(3), Hyderabad. PAN : AACCP5283H. (A…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orde…

United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orde…

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and the Section must be read along with the Rule. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT(A) [(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)] to explain as to what is business expediency and that the Assessing Officer cannot put himself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable to explain. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that a verification needs to be done by the authorities or a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 3, Srinagar vs. Measage Saifco Ceements Private Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

ITA 451/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 451/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. M/s Saifco Cement Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-3 Kral Sangri Brain Nishat, Srinagar Srinagar [PAN: AAECS 8832M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 6/Asr/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 451/Asr/2019) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Saifco Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Opp. Post Office Batwara Income Tax, Circle-3 Srinagar, J & K Shah House, Srinagar J&K [PAN: AAECS 8832M] (Ap…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ense holding not to be a contractual liability. It is a contractual liability and even otherwise allowable expenditure. In this regard, he relied upon the orders of Tupperware India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 234 Taxmann 56 (Del) and SA Builders Vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). He further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 (supra). 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record and also the decisions of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in AY…

DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Uk India Business Council India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3249/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: filing of return replying on the judgment of jurisdiction High Court given in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL. Ltd. without appreciating the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…nd again held that when an attempt by the Department to judge any transaction by applying yardstick of business expediency or commercial prudence has not found favour of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (S.C) held as under:- “We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 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 itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to pu…