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

Refex Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2938/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…e Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs Amalgamations P. Ltd (108 ITR 895) which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 226 ITR 188. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) was also applicable wherein it was held that expenditure incurred on commercial expediency in trying to retrieve its investments in subsidiary would be allowable deduction. 4.2 Regarding depreciation on cylinders, it was submitted that the cylinders were earlier sold out and repurchased this year. The Ld. AO mistakenly took this transaction as sal…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…issue is also decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in assessee’s own case wherein Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:- 70. “The Assessee's case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT [2015] 63 taxrnann.com 308/(2016) 236 Taxman 447/379 ITR 347 (SC). The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 579/131 Taxman 810 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 276/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

…pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36 (1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import' and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expend…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1002/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

…pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36 (1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import' and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expend…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1001/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

…pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction under Section 36 (1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import' and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expend…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…a subjective standard of (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., reasonableness. Therefore, expenditure incurred was allowed under section 37(1). 54. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:  SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co Ltd 91 ITR 8 (SC)  CIT vs Keshavial Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj)  Flipkart India Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bang)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008) (SC) dated 5 November 2015  Dresser-Rand India Private Limited (141 TTJ 385) (Mumbai ITAT) dated 7 September 2011  M/s. La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…a subjective standard of (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., reasonableness. Therefore, expenditure incurred was allowed under section 37(1). 54. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:  SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co Ltd 91 ITR 8 (SC)  CIT vs Keshavial Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj)  Flipkart India Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bang)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008) (SC) dated 5 November 2015  Dresser-Rand India Private Limited (141 TTJ 385) (Mumbai ITAT) dated 7 September 2011  M/s. La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA…

Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 763/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ompanies. She has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sridev Enterprises Vs. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar), and decision of the Hero Cycle P. Ltd. VS. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 and S.A. Builder Ld. Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) & CIT Vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (2013) 260 ITR 159 (Bombay ITA Nos. 763 &730/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 9 Tata Realty & Infrastructure Limited Vs. ACIT 2(3)(1) High Court). We find that judicial pronouncement referred by the ld. counsel in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sridev Enterprises as referred above is dis…

Jt CIT(OSD) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 730/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ompanies. She has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sridev Enterprises Vs. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Kar), and decision of the Hero Cycle P. Ltd. VS. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 and S.A. Builder Ld. Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) & CIT Vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (2013) 260 ITR 159 (Bombay ITA Nos. 763 &730/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 9 Tata Realty & Infrastructure Limited Vs. ACIT 2(3)(1) High Court). We find that judicial pronouncement referred by the ld. counsel in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sridev Enterprises as referred above is dis…

Habitate Realtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4658/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year: 2015-16 Habitate Realtech P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1) C-2/398, Pankha Road, New Delhi. Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058 Pan Aadch0617E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karamvir Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 71

…d deposits are made out of business fund, the interest income is directly connected to the business of the assessee. Hence, assessable as business income. In support of such contention Ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions : 1) S A Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 2) CIT vs Lok Holdings 308 ITR 356 (BOM) 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel drew my attention to the additional grounds and submitted that even if the interest income is assessed under the head “income from other sources” however, it has to be set off against the revenue expenses in terms of section 71 of the…

Rajappa Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-4(4), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2530/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…aged in similar line of business i.e. civil construction and sale of flats. Therefore, in our considered opinion, these investments were out of commercial expediency and the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. V/s CIT (288 ITR 1)was 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. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) is applicable to the facts of t…

DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Shriram Investments, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

….com 15 (Madras), but the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard in the present case are not justified. He also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), in this regard, has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at a later stage in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. in an S.L.P. in C.C.Nos.7138-7140 of 2012, by an order dated 30.04.2012. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that applying of 'Matching Pr…

Gvk Transportation Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 311/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Gvk Transportation Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcg5295P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Khyati Chadda Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28.07.2016 In Ita No.0049/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Ms. Khyati ChaddaFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…allowance as the assessee could not prove the impugned expenditure to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its own business. The assessee’s case on the other hand, quoted hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions 3 in SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 that commercial expediency is not merely restricted to assessee’s own business but also includes its subsidiaries’ business activities as well. Be that as it may, we note that CIT(A)’s order has simply brushed aside the assessee’s contentions without examining the clinching commercial expediency in…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 621/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…sion of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT V/s Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (98 Taxmann.com 401) would also be applicable to the fact of the case. This case has already considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. V/s CIT (288 ITR 1) which 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. Deriving strength from these decisions, we delete the disallowance of Rs.95.45 Lacs as made by lower authorities u/s 36(1)(iii). No other grounds…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Futurz Next Services Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3556/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs. Futurz Next Services Ltd., Central Circle-29, FA-45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCJ7692K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aasish Goel, CA Revenue by : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2016…

Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 261/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.261/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Income V Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Tax, Circle-1, Vadadora. S. Dist. Bharuch-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, C.AFor Respondent: ShriDependra Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…llowance of interest relating to interest free advances u/s 36(l)(iii) has to be made. ii) Punjab Stainless Steel Industries v. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 396 (Del.) In this case, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of SA Builders Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 1 and Munjal Sales Corporation (2008) 298 ITR 298, the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the disallowance pertaining to interest free advances given to sister concerns. Disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii) was confirmed on the ground that the advances were extended out of borrowed and not from any credit balances available with the assessee-firm. Further, ther…

ACIT, Circle- 28(1), New Delhi vs. Chadha Power, New Delhi

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

ITA 3055/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…rein rejecting the appellant's contention of 'commercial expediency' - reimbursement of expenses with a 10% mark-up.” 8. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) has referred to the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1. As regards the applicability of section 40(a)(i), ld. CIT(A) observed that first of all, expenses claimed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ towards royalty, fee for technical services or other sum chargeable under the Act which is payable outside India or in India to a non- resident on…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 882/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…odhra Electric Supplu Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 (SC), CIT vs Hotel Savera 229 ITR 795 (Mad) and S.A. Builders Vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1(SC). 33. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not made any :-25-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 reasons for not charging interest on loans given to sister concern, when assessee itself has charged interest on said loans up to cer…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 881/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…odhra Electric Supplu Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 (SC), CIT vs Hotel Savera 229 ITR 795 (Mad) and S.A. Builders Vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1(SC). 33. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not made any :-25-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 reasons for not charging interest on loans given to sister concern, when assessee itself has charged interest on said loans up to cer…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 880/CHNY/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…odhra Electric Supplu Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC). The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd 307 CTR 121 (SC), CIT vs Hotel Savera 229 ITR 795 (Mad) and S.A. Builders Vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1(SC). 33. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has not made any :-25-: ITA. No: 879, 880, 881 & 882/Chny/2017 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 reasons for not charging interest on loans given to sister concern, when assessee itself has charged interest on said loans up to cer…