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

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…tional facilitate the manufacturing Institute of activity of the Appellant. Planning & Management (P.) Ltd. [2015] 41 ITR(T) 733 (Delhi - Trib.) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) – this was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) 27.1 Based on the above, the Appellant submits that the impugned expense is revenue in nature and the same is allowable under section 37 of the Act. IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 51 of 55 27.2 Without prejudice, it is submitted that the DRP on treating the said expenses as being capital in nature, had allowed depreciation in terms of Sectio…

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Arts Initiative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7554/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…te of Madras v. G.J. Coelho [1964] 53 ITR 186 (SC); Bombay Steam Navigation Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC); - Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (82 ITR 166); and - S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) 7.7. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the above mentioned judicial decisions, the disallowance of Rs.60,16,402/- on ad-hoc basis is deleted. This ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant.” 5. The Revenue is dissatisfied and is before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the…

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…l pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expendi…

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…l pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expendi…

M/S. Sunil & Company, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JODH/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM M/s Sunil & Company Vs ACIT, 29/12 Light Industrial Area, Circle-01, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAAFS 4988 B Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, CA Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 03/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur dated 31.07.2018 [here in after referred…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…ce of interest expenses of Rs. 2,46,78,07,777/- for acquisition of the shares for erstwhile Spice Communication Ltd. This issue is identical to the facts and circumstances of the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. A. Builders (288 ITR 1) (SC) and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Concentrix Serives (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 111 taxmann.com 269 (Bom). Therefore, after following these decisions which are applicable mutatis mutandis, we allow ground no. 5 raised by the assessee. 13. Ground no. 6 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 4,14,65,950/- u/s 14A. This issue is i…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

…ce of interest expenses of Rs. 2,46,78,07,777/- for acquisition of the shares for erstwhile Spice Communication Ltd. This issue is identical to the facts and circumstances of the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. A. Builders (288 ITR 1) (SC) and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Concentrix Serives (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 111 taxmann.com 269 (Bom). Therefore, after following these decisions which are applicable mutatis mutandis, we allow ground no. 5 raised by the assessee. 13. Ground no. 6 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 4,14,65,950/- u/s 14A. This issue is i…

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 278/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 277/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 222/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 221/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs. Centum Learning Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6236/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5(2), New Delhi M/S. Centum Learning Ltd., 110002 127, Neel Gagan, Mandi Road, Vs. Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030 Pan Aadcb 3842 R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CA
Section 14A

…e the same cannot be disputed. 7. On careful consideration of above and findings of ld. CIT(A) in para 6.5, we are in agreement with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) based on preposition rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders reported as 288 ITR 1 (SC) and keeping in view the fact of suo motto reduction of claim of interest by the assessee in the computation of income amounting to Rs. 24,08,382/- we find that no interference is called for in the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition and allowing the interest of Rs. 7,47,950/- to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 2 o…

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9824/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…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 v. Panipat Woolen 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 investm…

Thinkstations Learning Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7345/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…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 v. Panipat Woolen 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 investm…

Living Media India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the consequences shall follow

ITA 7594/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Acit, K-9, Connaught Circus, Circle-15(2), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan : Aaacl0087H (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Living Media India ltd. Vs. ACIT, K-9, Connaught Circus, Circle-15(2), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN : AAACL0087H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by Ms. Garima Sharma, Sr. DR & Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.09.2018 in appeal no. 86/17-18 in…

Apostle Trading Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Hon’Blesh. N.K. Choudhry, Hon'Bleapostle Trading Consultants Private Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Limited New Delhi B-304, New Friends Colony New Delhi - 110065 Pan: Aahca2341Q

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Apostle Trading Consultants Private Vs. DCIT – Circle – 3(1) Limited New Delhi B-304, New Friends Colony New Delhi - 110065 PAN: AAHCA2341Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Sh. Mohit Gupta, CA, Neeraj Singh, CA & Sh. Nitin Sharma, CA Department Represented by : Department represented by: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31-03-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY (JM) 1. This appeal has been preferred b…

Manhar Yarns Private Limited, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 97/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)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…

Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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…

Nelumbo Paints Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Haryana

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, Adv &For Respondent: . Arvind Kumar Bansal
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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…

Abhi Soaps Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 79/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 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…