How many judgments cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT?

1,484 judgments on BharatTax cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 148, Section 147.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

288 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2007#26 most cited

What is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

1,484

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,244 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT · 288 ITR 1 · Section 36(1)(iii) · commercial expediency · business expediency · interest-free advances · disallowance of interest · onus to prove business purpose · borrowed funds · Revenue interference

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 74158 Taxmann.com 74

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14A Section 1961 Section 148 Section 147 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

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

M/S. Evergreen Hardware Stores vs. The Assistant Commissioner of

Appeal is allowed

ITA/201/2017HC Karnataka02 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 45(4)

…I.T.A No.201/2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA I.T.A NO.201 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. MANNAN M. AERANPURWALA NO.77/78, 2ND MAIN DRC POST, HOSUR ROAD CHIKKALAXMAIAH LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 029 PAN: AAAFE7755Q …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SE…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…re the Supreme Court and the same has become final, as evident from SC SLP dismissal order dt. 21.12.17 (In Civil Appeal No. 25987/2015). (Pg. 140-153 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) Similar view has been taken in the following decisions: d) SA Builder vs CIT (288 ITR 1)(SC) (Para 25, Pg. 175, Para 31, Pg. 176, Pg. 170-177 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) e) Nawn Estates (P) Ltd Vs CIT (1977)(106 ITR 45)(SC) (Pg. 118, Pg. 115-123 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 f) VST Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (2010)(134 TTJ 361) (Hyd ITAT) (Para 7, Pg. 182, Pg. 178-187 of…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &

Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

…ed wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and no tangible asset accrued to the assessee. The appellant has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 124 ITR 1- Empire Jute Co Ltd v CIT, 177 ITR 377 — Alembic Chemical Works Co Ltd v CIT, 288 ITR 1 — S.A. Builders Pvt Ltd and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mcdowell Co Ltd in ITA.No. 12/99, and also recent decision of the ITAT, Kolkatta in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd in ITA.No. 470/Ca1/1998. Further, it is submitted similar type of payment made in the AY: 1991-92 have been allowed by the ITAT in the appellan…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

…was proposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was correctly deleted by the DRP. In this regard, the Ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on the following judgments/decisions: - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT(Appeals) : [2007] 288 ITR 1 - CIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 482 (Delhi) - CIT Mumbai-2 vs. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd : order dated 27.03.2015 passed in ITA No. 1325/1334/1335/1656/1657/1658 of 2013 - DCIT vs. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd: 92 ITD 97 (Mum)(TM) - DCIT, Circle 2(2) vs. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd: common order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal dated…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

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

ITA 5375/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6872/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 5375/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 DCIT, Vs Jagson International Ltd., 3rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Circle-13(1), New Delhi-110002 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ2147A CO No. 83/Del/2022 (in ITA No. 6872/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16) Jagson International Ltd., Vs DCIT, 3rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Circle-13(1), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New De…

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

ITA 6872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

ACIT CC - 13, New Delhi vs. A B Hotels Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 864/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Vs. A.B. Hotels Limited, Cc-13, Radisson Hotel, New Delhi. National Highway-08, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca2729B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.12.2019 Of The Cit(A)-37, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting Disallowances Of Rs.7,67,21,258/- Which Pertains To House Property Income But Wrongly Claimed In The P&L By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Ignoring The Fact That The Principle Of Res Judicata Is Not Applicable In The Income Tax Proceedings. 3. A) The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Not Tenable In Law & On Facts. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Kanika Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

…of Board of Directors and assume the said role to decide how much is a reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of a case. Lastly, placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, (2007) 288 ITR 1, the ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by referring to the judgement of 4 jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (supra), explicitly held that the Revenue authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point, but, that of a prudent businessman. 5. Placing rejoinder to the above, the ld. Sr. DR s…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.4499/Del

ITA 4499/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R

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

…d Leasing Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (11) TMI-269-Delhi-HC, CIT vs., Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd., reported in 254 ITR 377 CIT vs., Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd., 155 taxmann 268 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs., CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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 put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of di…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.4499/Del

ITA 4498/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R

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

Sohanraj Khimraj Kothari, Hubli vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Hubli

In the result, ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is partly allowed

ITA 687/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.686 and 687/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 Mr. Sohanraj Khimraj Kothari, Vs. JCIT, Prop: M/s. K S Kothari, Range - 3, Sanghvi Complex, New Javali Saal, Hubli. Hubli – 580 020. PAN : ACZPK 8499 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.06.2022 of NFAC, Delhi, rel…

Sohanraj Khimraj Kothari, Hubli vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Hubli

In the result, ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is partly allowed

ITA 686/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

Rk Infra & Engineering India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 263

…as not substantiated its claim with the any documentary evidence and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C.I.T Vs. Tulip star Hotels Ltd. (2012)(SC) held that in our view, S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and Another, reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court itself has realised that the principle laid down in S. A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) is too wide and sets the boundaries too loose to have a effective interpretation and implementation of the principle of commercial expediency. In the present case it is seen from record, the assessing of…

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

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 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. 32 IT(TP)A No.3091/Bang/2018 M/s.United Spirits Limited. 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…

Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6738/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…laim deduction under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 36 on the amount which is not used for the purposes of business but is given to the partners for their personal use. (c) The Apex Court, in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007/ 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 also had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 36(l)(iii). In that case, after a detailed examination of the provisions, the Supreme Court held that when a claim for deduction under Section 36(1 )(hi) is made, the authorities should enquire as to whether the interest free loan was given as a measure of commercial expedienc…

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

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

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

…the partners, their relatives and sister concerns and so long as the advances are interest free, the Assessing Officer is perfectly justified in disallowing the interest in proportion to the advances made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 has also reiterated the aforesaid principles, unless the Assessee Company can prove that the amounts advanced to sister concerns/subsidiary are for the commercial expediency of these concerns. Moreover, the Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. has not accepted the contention of the Assessing Officer as no exercise for es…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol vs. M/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd

ITAT/155/2022HC Calcutta16 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)

…O-71 ITAT/155/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL -Versus- M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16th November, 2022. The Court: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 24th September, 2020 passed b…

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

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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…

Garve Motors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

ITA 776/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Garve Motors Pvt. Ltd., S.No.136/1A 46, B P Road, Pune – 411016 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aadcg4391A बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/12/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Climbed Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Mrs. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40a

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “बी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.776/PUN/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Garve Motors Pvt. Ltd., S.No.136/1A 46, B P Road, Pune – 411016 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant PAN:AADCG4391A बनाम / V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Mrs. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of concl…