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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. It is also evident that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mo…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 111/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 107/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…hich the proper income could be deduced. AO cannot direct the businessman to act in a particular manner when the Act does not have any such kind of provisions. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC): Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. This clearly shows that the observation of the ld. AO is mechanical and without application of mind. Mor…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…fit of carry forward and set off of capital losses against subsequent year profits. In the foregoing paragraphs, we held that the impugned transaction is legally valid and permissible under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income tax authorities cannot…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…fit of carry forward and set off of capital losses against subsequent year profits. In the foregoing paragraphs, we held that the impugned transaction is legally valid and permissible under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income tax authorities cannot…

Rain Cements Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…connection with the business of the assessee company. Although the principle of commercial expediency and nexus between the expenditure has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders v. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (288 ITR 1) however, for the audit to opine whether any expenditure met the requisite of section 36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Act, in our opinion, was beyond its competence. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings on this issue is wholly untenable in law. Since the assessee in…

The ACIT Cent. Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Airmid Developers Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2381/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrythe Acit, Cc-6(4), Vs Airmid Developers Ltd. Room No. 1925, 19Th M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Floor, Connought Place, Air India Building, New Delhi-110001. Nariman Point, Pan: Aagca5601G Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…Developers Ltd. “It is a settled legal view that that the only condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii) is ‘commercial expediency’ of the expenditure incurred. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) support this contention in which it was held that if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. The Ld. Commissioner also relied the judgment of the High Court of Madras i…

ACIT Circle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Solitaire Appliances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7559/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rpose of business or r the purpose of business or profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) held that when interest free that when interest free loans are given to sister sister company (i.e. subsidiary company) as a subsidiary company) as a measure of the commercial exped of the commercial expediency, then coresponding coresponding interest on borrowed capital is also eligible for deduction. Befor…

Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 3 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5855/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rpose of business or r the purpose of business or profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) held that when interest free that when interest free loans are given to sister sister company (i.e. subsidiary company) as a subsidiary company) as a measure of the commercial exped of the commercial expediency, then coresponding coresponding interest on borrowed capital is also eligible for deduction. Befor…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5587/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rpose of business or r the purpose of business or profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of profession. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SA) held that when interest free that when interest free loans are given to sister sister company (i.e. subsidiary company) as a subsidiary company) as a measure of the commercial exped of the commercial expediency, then coresponding coresponding interest on borrowed capital is also eligible for deduction. Befor…

Bangalore Beverages Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 294/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…write off of debt is established. The charging of interest and waiver thereof is a matter of commercial expediency which should be best left to the esteemed discretion of the business person as held in Supreme Court in S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT(Appeals) & Anr (288 ITR 1). In view of this the disallowance made by invoking section 40A(2)(b) is clearly untenable. Further the disallowance is not even justifiable as the addition is only a notional income which the assessee had no right to enforce after the waiver. It is an established law that nothing is liable to tax when neither income is accrued nor received nor is…

M/S Bangalore Beverages Pvt Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ard-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 438/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…write off of debt is established. The charging of interest and waiver thereof is a matter of commercial expediency which should be best left to the esteemed discretion of the business person as held in Supreme Court in S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT(Appeals) & Anr (288 ITR 1). In view of this the disallowance made by invoking section 40A(2)(b) is clearly untenable. Further the disallowance is not even justifiable as the addition is only a notional income which the assessee had no right to enforce after the waiver. It is an established law that nothing is liable to tax when neither income is accrued nor received nor is…

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

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 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 IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 45 of 70 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.…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gabriel India Limited, 29Th Milestone

ITA 641/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2017-18 The Dcit, Gabriel India Ltd, 29Th Circle-5(1)(1), Milestone Pune, Vs. Mumbai Nahik Highway, Village- Kuruli, Tal Khed, Pune (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg1994N

For Appellant: Ms. Dipika DingrejaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…ssing Officer cannot sit in judgment of businessman position in incurring any expenditure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) have applied the ratio laid down by the Apex court in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld the scope of commercial expediency, wherein it was held that The expression "commercial expediency" is 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 yet it is allowable as a business ex…

Favourite Constructions P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 297/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri D S Sreekumaran/Shri PFor Respondent: Sri Prasanth V. K (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ven to both the subsidiary/sister concerns and being satisfied with the justification/explanation given by the assessee about the commercial expediency, the AO taking note of the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) had allowed the interest expenditure of assessee for earlier years. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the only fault found by the Ld. PCIT is about the omission on the part of AO not enquiring/verifying about the interest expenditure claimed by assessee, even though advances have been given to two subsidiary companies free of interest. Acco…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ireo Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…thority to dictate the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and what expenditure should be incurred by the assessee, irrespective of the profitability or considering future prospects. Reliance is placed in the case of S.A. Builders Vs CIT (2006) (289 ITR 26), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "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 ITA Nos.2849 &2850/Del/2016; CO No.235 & 236/Del/2016; ITA Nos.910 & 911/Del/2017; & CO No.99 & 100/Del/2017 the expenditure is r…