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 367,359 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

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

In the result, all the appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 214/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

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 213/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

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…

Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-35, Mumbai

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

ITA 5058/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Parida/Ms. KiranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

…support its contention of consistency. Further, the AO while adjudicating this issue may also keep in mind the following 13 A.Y. 2011-12 Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P. Ltd. observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case S.A Builders Vs CIT (288 ITR 1) regarding commercial expediency:- 34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifi…

Manish Murlidhar Sabade, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 412/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Manish Murlidhar Sabade, The Dcit, Circle-3, Pune. 101, Chintamani Pride Vs S.No.12/7/8, Kothrud, . Pune – 411038. Pan: Aiips 0527 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune- 3’S Order Dated 15.01.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit (A)- 3/Cir.3,Pn/347/2017-18, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

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

…ng funds only. 4. Learned counsel reiterated the assessee’s stand adopted throughout that his diversion of interest bearing funds was for business purposes involving commercial expediency. He also quotes hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in S A Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) that such a diversion of interest bearing funds involving commercial expediency indeed deserves business deduction under the provisions of the Act. All these arguments fail to evoke our concurrence as it has come on record from a perusal of assessment ITA No.412/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Manish M. Sabade (A) discussion in para 5.2 page 4 tha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skm Fabrics ( Amana ) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7027/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant, Member & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Circle-4(3)(2), Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Skm Fabrics (Amana) Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Ground Floor, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aafcs2660E ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hoshang B Irani (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Yogesh Joijode Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 Order Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Hoshang B Irani (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Joijode
Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…ed that there was no similar disallowance in the earlier years in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein it was held that interest on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed, if the assessee has advanced interest free loans to a sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. It was also observed that on similar issue in assessee’s own case for Ay 2011-12, the same has been decided in favour of assessee. 9. From the above observations…

Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5516/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal Tax-18(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) 33/35, Ground Floor, Matru Vatsalya, 2Nd Fofal Wadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400 002. Pan : Aaatc7307E (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. Anand Keshav Shejwal Tax-18(1), Mumbai. (Appellant) 33/35, Ground floor, Matru Vatsalya, 2nd Fofal Wadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 400 002. PAN : AAATC7307E (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Jain Respondent by : Shri Vipul Joshi Date of Hearing : 17/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 O R D E R This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’…

Apl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

Apl Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Apl Logistics (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

Apl Logistics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…on expediency. The ld. Counsel further referred to list of customers served by both the assessee and IILPL at page 4 of the Paper Book-II. The ld. Counsel in support of her contentions placed reliance on following decisions: (1) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 (SC). (2) DCIT Vs. Core Helthcare Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC). (3) CIT Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, 208 ITR 616 (Cal.) & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. In respect of second issue relating to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D, the ld. Counsel submitted that during the relevant period no exempt income was earned by the assessee, hence,…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1328/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1285/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1269/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1268/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1232/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratoreis Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1231/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…ee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 89 taxmann.com 398 (Hyd-Trib). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with the issue in extenso and while placing reliance on the decision reported in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1] (SC) and held that the agreement between DRL India and DRLSA cannot be doubted. While Page 13 of 33 ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1285 1268, 1269 & 1328/Hyd/2018 respectfully following the same, we answer this issue in favour of the assessee and dismiss Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal. 19. Grounds No. 6 & 7 of Revenue’s appeal deal with disallowance of…

Asst CIT Circle- 7 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8060/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 8060/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2003-04) Cit, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No.128A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.) 1 Piramal Towerannexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aabcg-0093-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Minlind Chavan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ronak Doshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05 /08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 22/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Shri Ronak Doshi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Effective Grounds. Majority Of The Grounds Raised In Appeal By Revenue Are Either Covered By The Order Of 2 Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.9645/Mum/2004 For Assessment Year 2001-02 Decided On 02/08/2016 Or By The Order Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Assessee Titled Pcit Vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal No.556 Of 2017 Decided On 11/06/2019. 3. Per Contra, Shri Minlind Chavan Representing The Department Vehemently Defending The Assessment Order Prayed For Reversing The Findings Of Cit(A) & Upholding The Additions Made In The Assessment Order. However, Ld. Departmental Representative Fairly Stated That Substantial Issues Raised In The Appeal Have Been Considered By The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For Preceding Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Minlind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi
Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ सी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 8060/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2003-04) CIT, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No.128A, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.) 1 Piramal TowerAnnexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. PAN: AABCG-0093-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant…

Allen Career Institute, Kota vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the Grounds No

ITA 54/JPR/2017[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2012-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…and none can be forced to charge interest. In DCIT v/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2014) 31 ITR (Trib) 668 (Ahd) at page 671, it is held that “………….., the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case…….” 6.1 No Interest paid on Partner`s Capital on current year profits: Its factually wrong that appellant paid interest on their capital. Factually there was no interest paid w.r.t. huge net-profits of Rs.38.27 Cr. before depreciation and Rs. 34.61 Cr. after depreciation, of this year in…