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.

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 1)

Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4729/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2795/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2620/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Sahara India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…Thus no disallowance was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITAT following the decision of this Court in SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT18, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of interest on borrowed fund 18 288 ITR 1 65 since the advances were made for the purposes of commercial expediency. 35.4. Revenue challenged the aforesaid decision of the ITAT before the Bombay High Court. Adverting to one of its previous decisions, High Court held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act when the investmen…

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 635/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, #133/1 The Residency, 2Nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Narendra Sharma AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, #133/1 The Residency, 2nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. PAN : BSOPS 2078 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Power Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3989/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Acit-15(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Revenue-अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…accounts were not maintained by the assessee for investments and other expenditure incurred for earning tax free income. Further, in this regard, the appellant has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd (2007) 158 Taxmann.com 74(SC), as quoted above in its submissions made. Based on the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that no attribution of interest expenses could be made for the purpose of making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Following the same principle, no attribution of interest expenses could be made for the purposes…

Kasturi Medical Centre Private Limited, Joka, Thakurpukur vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…103 ITR 66 (SC) held that so long as the expenditure is real and incurred for business purposes, the Department cannot substitute its own wisdom to determine what is "reasonable." This doctrine has been reaffirmed in SA. Builders Laid. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles (P) Lal x CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC), where it was emphasised that once nexus with business purpose is shown, no disallowance is permissible merely because the Revenue perceives the quantum as excessive. Most recently, the Supreme Court in Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT (2020) 425 ITR 420 (SC) reiterated that the perception of the Asse…

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…t the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit, he can make, out of his trading activity. Income on which he can be taxed is only the income he has earned. So also recently, the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 has observed that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits. Therefore, in view of the above, this question as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW ITA No. 355/LKW/2020 12. Ground no. 2 of the Department appeal, rela…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…t the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit, he can make, out of his trading activity. Income on which he can be taxed is only the income he has earned. So also recently, the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 has observed that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits. Therefore, in view of the above, this question as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW ITA No. 355/LKW/2020 12. Ground no. 2 of the Department appeal, rela…

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

…t the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit, he can make, out of his trading activity. Income on which he can be taxed is only the income he has earned. So also recently, the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 has observed that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits. Therefore, in view of the above, this question as proposed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW ITA No. 355/LKW/2020 12. Ground no. 2 of the Department appeal, rela…

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeals of the a In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment ssessee for Assessment

ITA 6215/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Namrata R. Dedhia

…he authorities below cannot be countenanced in law. cannot be countenanced in law. The Hon’ble Supreme The Hon’ble Supreme court in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of court in Income Tax (Ap Income Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) peals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held as under: as under: “34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once (2002) 254 ITR 377 tha…

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment

ITA 6074/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata R. DedhiaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR. & Shri

Section 143(2)

…es commercial prudence and, therefore, the resultant loss is not allowable. 8.2 In our opinion, the approach of the authorities below cannot be countenanced in law. The Hon'ble Supreme court in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held as under: “34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) 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 justifiably claim…

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment

ITA 6073/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata R. DedhiaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR. & Shri

Section 143(2)

…ies commercial prudence and, therefore, the resultant loss is not allowable. 8.2 In our opinion, the approach of the authorities below cannot be countenanced in law. The Hon'ble Supreme court in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held as under: “34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) 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 justifiably claim t…

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment

ITA 6072/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata R. DedhiaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, CIT DR. & Shri

Section 143(2)

…ies commercial prudence and, therefore, the resultant loss is not allowable. 8.2 In our opinion, the approach of the authorities below cannot be countenanced in law. The Hon'ble Supreme court in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held as under: “34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) 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 justifiably claim t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1795/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HONBLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1795/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Pragathi Green Meadows & Income Tax, Resorts Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AACCP5283H (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No.31/Hyd/2025 (In आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1795/Hyd/2017) (निर्…

Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 24Section 32

…argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it is not within the domain of the tax authorities to determine the necessity of borrowing for a business as held by the 6 I.T.A. No.788/Chny/25 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). He argued that the disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not maintainable if the borrowings is for the purpose of business, the necessity, reasonableness, or prudence of such borrowing cannot be questioned by the taxing authorities. He relied on the decision in the case of SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and argued that the disallowa…

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…es are made for capital account or revenue account. 18. In support of the above arguments, ld.AR rely on the following judicial pronouncements: 19. Apart from relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of S A Buildiers ltd reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), the ld.AR placed reliance in the case of Madhav Prasad Jantia vs CIT UP AIR 1979 SC 1291, it was held that the expression “for the purpose of business occurring under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Pl…

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…es are made for capital account or revenue account. 18. In support of the above arguments, ld.AR rely on the following judicial pronouncements: 19. Apart from relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of S A Buildiers ltd reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), the ld.AR placed reliance in the case of Madhav Prasad Jantia vs CIT UP AIR 1979 SC 1291, it was held that the expression “for the purpose of business occurring under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Pl…

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC- 1, New Delhi

Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

Sahara India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III N.D

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Power Ltd, Mumbai

Kasturi Medical Centre Private Limited, Joka, Thakurpukur vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.P

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2, Lucknow

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Nest Childcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Limited, Hyderabad

Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai