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)

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 37(1)

…ld by above judicial precedents, mark to market loss is revenue expenditure. c) Investment in subsidiary for strategic purpose should be allowable as deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: (i). S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT [SC] 288 ITR 1 (Refer Page 335 to 341 of the paperbook) (ii). Hero Cycles (P) Ltd [SC] [2015] 379 ITR 347 (iii). CIT vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Lts. [Bom HC] [2012] 254 CTR 251 6 ITA NO. 2349 & 2148/MUM/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) Macrotech Developers Limited (iv). CIT vs. Daimia Cement Bharat Ltd. [Del HC} [2011] 330 ITR 595 d) Without prejudice to the…

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Wanbury Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Sector 30A, Income Tax, Bsel Tech Park B Wing Circle 15(3)(1), Vs. Opp Vashi Rly Station R.No. 451 Aayakar Bhavan Vashi, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400075 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5939P

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 154Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Wanbury Limited The Dy. Commissioner of 10th Floor, Sector 30A, Income Tax, BSEL Tech Park B wing Circle 15(3)(1), Vs. Opp Vashi Rly Station R.No. 451 Aayakar Bhavan Vashi, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400075 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCP5939P Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal, advocate, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 23.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 25.04.2022 : O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assesse…

Akik Tiles (P) Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Jt.CIT., Mehsana Range, Mehsana

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

ITA 966/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 966/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2009-2010 M/S.Akik Tiles Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., S.No.1071/74, Vs. Mehsana Range, Nandasan Mehsana Highway, Mehsana. Nandasan, Mehsana.

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…the parties for the purpose of the advertisement. As such the AO cannot interfere in the business decision of the assessee. 16.2 The Ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders reported in 288 ITR 1. 17. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 18. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no ambiguity to the fact that the AO is not expected to interfere in the decision making process of the assessee. In the business environment,…

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company PCIT-1 Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue by: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/03/2022…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji vs. M/S Milroc Good Earth Property and Developers LLP, Panaji

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 26/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…for other purposes for meeting administrative expenses . It is stated that assessee has advanced the said amount to MDC for commercial expediency and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of SA Builders Limited v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC).The assessee is partner in MDC entitled for 50% share in profits and the said concern is also engaged in real estate and construction. The Revenue could not controvert the said contention of the assessee that the said amount was advanced keeping in view commercial expediency as stated above, thus keeping in view our above detailed reasoning , w…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Sharada Erectors Private Limited., Pune`

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2043/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2043/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The A.C.I.T., Sharada Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6, Vs 38, Vijayanagar Colony, Pune Pune-411030. Pan No. Aaccs 6028 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Revenue By Ms. Divya Bajpai (Cit-Dr) Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Date Of Hearing 22/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Dcit, Circle-6, Pune/85/2016-17/152 Dated 27/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 7,44,78,911/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, When The Funds Were Raised By Interest Bearing Loan Which Was Advanced To Sister Concern For Non Business Purpose. 2. For This An Such Other Reasons As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Alter Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal.” 2. The Assessee Is A Builder-Developer. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, In The Assessment Order, It Is Claimed That The Assessee Has Used Interest Bearing Funds For Giving Advances To Its Sister Concerns & Related Entities, Therefore, The A.O. Opined That The Funds Have Been Used For Non-Business Purposes. The Assessee Submitted Before The A.O. During The Assessment Proceedings That They Have

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…s 36(1)(iii) forever. The AO’s main apprehension appears to be that the interest expenditure incurred is not earning any revenue during the year. Appellant has countered this by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. [2007 (288 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Court has reiterated its decision in CIT Vs Malayam Plantations Ltd [1964 53 ITR 140 (SC)] to hold that the expression “for the purpose of business” is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning profits”. The Court also agreed with the view taken by Delhi High Court in Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd. [2002 (254…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3053/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…mixed funds were available with the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1). Keeping in view the fact that the assessee did not satisfactorily explain its stand before lower authorities, we remit this issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions made before us.This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee’s Appeal fo…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orde…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3438/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…n which the loans were granted. As per the Annual Report for AY 2005- 06, the assessee generated funds of Rs.6895 Lacs. Accordingly, the assessee relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1), the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) in support of various arguments. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix, noted that this issue was recurring in nature. In AYs 2003-04 and 2005-06, this is…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…n which the loans were granted. As per the Annual Report for AY 2005- 06, the assessee generated funds of Rs.6895 Lacs. Accordingly, the assessee relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1), the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) in support of various arguments. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix, noted that this issue was recurring in nature. In AYs 2003-04 and 2005-06, this is…

Ranjani Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3099/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Halen Ruby Jesintha (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…ll 31.03.2013. Therefore, non-charging of interest was fully justified by the assessee and the same could be said to have been out of commercial expediency. In such a case 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 wherein it was 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 import and includes such exp…

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 2936/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM The ACIT-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAGFM6042A Assessee by : Shri Rushabh Mehta, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Date of hearing: 09.03.2023 Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. The learned Asst Commissioner of Incom…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dcom Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2008/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 & Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit (Osd), Range-1 M/S.D-Com Systems Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Shop No.28, 1St Floor Vraj Vihar 6, B/H. Rahul Tower, Off. 100 Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaccd 4827 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Orders Dated 7.7.2014 & 26.05.2016 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad For The Asstt.Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since Assessee Is Same In Both The Cases, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…g. The said JPL has undertaken contract work on behalf of the assessee amounting to Rs.140,59,18,416/-, and investment and loans & advance to the sisters concerns are for the purpose of business. Assessee relied various judgments vis. SA Builders Ltd Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, DCIT, Jewel Consumer Care P.Ltd., ITA No.884/Ahd/2009 order dated 21.12.2011 for the proposition that on the ground of commercial expediency, the expenditure can be treated as business expenditure. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Bombay high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance utilities, ITA No.1398 of 2008, jurisdictional High C…

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

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

Akik Tiles (P) Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Jt.CIT., Mehsana Range, Mehsana

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Panaji vs. M/S Milroc Good Earth Property and Developers LLP, Panaji

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Sharada Erectors Private Limited., Pune`

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai

Ranjani Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), Chennai

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dcom Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad