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 367,322 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

DE vs. On Private Limited, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 549/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

…n held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Amritsar ITAT bench in the case of ‘Subash Chander & Co. v. Income Tax Officer/ (2009)121TTJ 718 (copy enclosed) vide para 6 of the order that: “Moreover, as held in S.A Builders Lt vs. CIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631: (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman and assume the role to decide, as to how much the expenditure is reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case; no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit; the IT authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how…

DE vs. On Private Limited, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 204/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

…n held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Amritsar ITAT bench in the case of ‘Subash Chander & Co. v. Income Tax Officer/ (2009)121TTJ 718 (copy enclosed) vide para 6 of the order that: “Moreover, as held in S.A Builders Lt vs. CIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631: (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman and assume the role to decide, as to how much the expenditure is reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case; no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit; the IT authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how…

Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7547/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 206Section 271Section 37

…e and upheld by the authorities below. The same are set aside with the direction to the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. The objection is accordingly allowed. iv) Kind attention is invited to the judgment of S A Builders Limited v CIT (A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) wherein while considering the case of Delhi High Court in CITv Dalmia Cement (B) Limited [2002J 254 IJR 377 held as under:- 4 ITA No.7547/Del./2017 "The Revenue cannot justifiable claim to put itself in the arm chair of business man or in the position of Board of Directors to assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure havin…

Watermarke Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 740/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…s argued by the ld.DR and further submitted that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by vi…

Watermark Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…s argued by the ld.DR and further submitted that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by vi…

Watermark Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1590/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…s argued by the ld.DR and further submitted that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by vi…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 72/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, 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 "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 and 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by :…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 71/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, 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 "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 and 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by :…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीवी. दुगा" राव,माननीय"ाियकसद"एवं "ीजी. मंजूनाथा, माननीयलेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLEJUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd., v. The Dy. Commissioner- KRM Centre, 9th Floor, of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [PAN:AAACS 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.18/Chn…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीवी. दुगा" राव,माननीय"ाियकसद"एवं "ीजी. मंजूनाथा, माननीयलेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLEJUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd., v. The Dy. Commissioner- KRM Centre, 9th Floor, of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [PAN:AAACS 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.18/Chn…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीवी. दुगा" राव,माननीय"ाियकसद"एवं "ीजी. मंजूनाथा, माननीयलेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLEJUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd., v. The Dy. Commissioner- KRM Centre, 9th Floor, of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [PAN:AAACS 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.18/Chn…

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीवी. दुगा" राव,माननीय"ाियकसद"एवं "ीजी. मंजूनाथा, माननीयलेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLEJUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd., v. The Dy. Commissioner- KRM Centre, 9th Floor, of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [PAN:AAACS 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.18/Chn…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad vs. Quark Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1270/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/s.Quark Enterprises 1st floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032 PAN : AAACQ3370N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate Revenue by: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. T…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…10] 326 ITR 425 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sundaram Industries Ltd. 240 ITR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) (C.1.1) Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the disallowances in respect of club membership expenses was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for As…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…10] 326 ITR 425 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sundaram Industries Ltd. 240 ITR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) (C.1.1) Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the disallowances in respect of club membership expenses was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for As…

Titan Industries Limited, Hosur vs. JCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2239/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Ms. Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(1)

…urpose or in furtherance of business objectives would not be correct. No business expediency of advancement of loan could be demonstrated by the assessee. For the same reason, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.builders V/s CIT (288 ITR 1) as well the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Spencers & Co. Ltd. (47 Taxmann.com 55) would not apply. The decision of Chennai Tribunal in ACIT V/s W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. is factually distinguishable since the assessee’s subsidiary was executing contracts on behalf of the assessee. The assessee settled the claim of subsidia…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3573/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43

…bunal have followed the decision of the Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries. The proposition laid down in this judgement are at variance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. Vs CIT (S.C.)(2007) 288 ITR 1 has held as follows:- 22. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the income-tax authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister concern (a subsidiary) as interest free loan. The test, in…

Millennium Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Co. Circle - IV (3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 217/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)

…of Sec.40A(2) would have no application in the present case and for this reason alone, the disallowance made by revenue is not sustainable in law. 3.3 Proceeding further, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1) would be applicable to factual matrix wherein it has been held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purposes of business, which need not be the business of the assessee, deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) was to be allowed. It was further held that the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is an expression of wide impor…

Millennium Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Co. Circle - IV (3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 216/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)

…of Sec.40A(2) would have no application in the present case and for this reason alone, the disallowance made by revenue is not sustainable in law. 3.3 Proceeding further, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1) would be applicable to factual matrix wherein it has been held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purposes of business, which need not be the business of the assessee, deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) was to be allowed. It was further held that the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is an expression of wide impor…

Millennium Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Co. Circle - IV (3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 215/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)

…of Sec.40A(2) would have no application in the present case and for this reason alone, the disallowance made by revenue is not sustainable in law. 3.3 Proceeding further, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1) would be applicable to factual matrix wherein it has been held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purposes of business, which need not be the business of the assessee, deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) was to be allowed. It was further held that the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is an expression of wide impor…