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 367,368 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

Dayalu Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6174/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…annot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several www.taxguru.in I.T.A. No.8113/DEL/2018 39 occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to be seen from the point of view of businessman. Here in this case if the inve…

Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Faridabad

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

ITA 6173/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…annot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several www.taxguru.in I.T.A. No.8113/DEL/2018 39 occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to be seen from the point of view of businessman. Here in this case if the inve…

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. Real Trade Technologies, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6939/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-28(2), Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor,Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Real Trade Technologies, F-07, D-02, Real Tech Park, Plot No.-39/02, Sector-10, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aaifr4687C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. T. Shankar (Sr. Ar.Cit) Respondent By : Sh. M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Dated 26.08.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Citia) Was Correct In Deleting The Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Paid On Borrowed Capital Amounting To Rs. 2, 12 40,434/- U/S 36(1) (Iii) Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Establish The Commercial

For Appellant: Sh. T. Shankar (Sr. Ar.CIT)For Respondent: Sh. M. Subramanian (AR)
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)

…hare capital/unsecured loan/advance. Appellant given 93.5 lacs to M/s Gami Properties Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kane Constructions 2.10 cr, Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd. Rs.8 cr. and M/s Om Shakti Enterprises Rs.1.37 cr. AO while relying in the case of S.A. Builder, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) disallowed the interest paid on above mentioned advances given to sister concern interest free. 4. Aggrieved appellant approached the forum of first appellate authority i.e. ld. CIT (A)-26, Mumbai. During appellate proceeding, the appellant filed following submissions before the first appellate authority which summarized as under:  The Appell…

Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd, Chennai vs. JCIT, Company Range II, Chennai

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

ITA 204/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…e could not settle the outstanding loan taken from Oman International Bank and assessee paid the corporate guarantee given to bank. The ld.counsel stated that this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. CIT(A), 288 ITR 1 and he drew our attention to para 28 to 32 as under:- 28. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized by the assessee in its own business, but had been advanced as interest free loan to its sister concern. However, in our opinion, that fact is not really relevant. What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to…

M/S General Aerodynamics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. PAN No. AABCG 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Hitesh Jain, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against orde…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…ing regard to the direct or indirect commercial interest of the Company, corporate guarantee is given with a view to safeguard and to further business interest. Hence, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held 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 directors and assume th…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…ing regard to the direct or indirect commercial interest of the Company, corporate guarantee is given with a view to safeguard and to further business interest. Hence, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held 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 directors and assume th…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…ing regard to the direct or indirect commercial interest of the Company, corporate guarantee is given with a view to safeguard and to further business interest. Hence, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it has been held 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 directors and assume th…

Dr. Kamal Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4525/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Kamal Kumar Sethi, Vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), 41, Uday Park, New Delhi, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi Pin 110 049 PAN AABPS2925H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sidhant Arora, CA Department by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.07.2022 Date of 04.07.2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.04.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New…

Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 148/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paruchuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…further stated that the sources of the partnership capital were the loans taken from Chola Mandalam Finance and IDBI and these loans were directly invested as the capital of the firm. The appellant relied on the judgment of SA Builders Vs. CIT as reported in 288 ITR 1 and the judgment of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries V. CIT 324 ITR 396 and stated that the capital must have been borrowed by the appellant for the purpose of business for the allowance of the interest on that capital and therefore the disallowance should be deleted The appellant further relied on the fact that the said interest was allowed as a…

Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 144/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paruchuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…further stated that the sources of the partnership capital were the loans taken from Chola Mandalam Finance and IDBI and these loans were directly invested as the capital of the firm. The appellant relied on the judgment of SA Builders Vs. CIT as reported in 288 ITR 1 and the judgment of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries V. CIT 324 ITR 396 and stated that the capital must have been borrowed by the appellant for the purpose of business for the allowance of the interest on that capital and therefore the disallowance should be deleted The appellant further relied on the fact that the said interest was allowed as a…

DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi vs. Trustline Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4691/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chaudhary, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14A

…ng as despite requisite details filed by the assesses before him, he made the impugned disallowance which is not sustainable. Agreeing with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which is backed by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC), we reject ground No. 4 of the Revenue as well. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2022. sd/- (G. S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/06/2022 Veena…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

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

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

…ear under consideration as the same was introduced in the statute only with effect from Asst Year 2004-05 and not applicable for earlier years. 6.11. We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 would be squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: "In our opinion, the decisions relating to section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to section 36(l)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in the d…

Olectra Greentech Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 63/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri L.P.Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…D-AS 101, then the assessee was required to correct the status of the inventories and record of the assessee should reflect the correct state of affairs . We may fruitfully rely upon the decision of SC in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) After taking note of and discussing on the scope of commercial expediency, the Court summed up the legal position in the following manner:— “26. 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…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…uential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles.…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2169/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…uential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles.…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…uential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles.…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…uential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles.…

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kadapa

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…uential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment year. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., [289 ITR 26 (SC)], additional ground cannot be considered, in the absence of any facts on record. 15.3 In view of this, since the issue did not arise in the year under consideration and the facts pertaining to the quantification of the claim are not on record, we cannot entertain the additional ground, just because law on this was settled on legal principles.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Belagavi vs. M/S Nirani Sugars Limited, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 178/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…tilized for other than the business purpose. The case of the Department appears to be that, it was not required for the appellant to borrow funds for the purpose of business. Kind reference is invited to the decision of the Apex Court in S.A. Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). The ratio of the decision in the case of S.A. Builders is applicable in the present case with all force. 8. In view of these circumstances, it is prayed that the ground of appeal relating to deletion of addition of Rs.2,75,00,000/- be dismissed.” 7.1. As regards to the issue of the claim of depreciation, the counsel has placed the reliance…