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)

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

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

ITA 879/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2001-02

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…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1259/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1258/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

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…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1257/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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 1256/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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 1255/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

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 1254/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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…

Deepak Nagindas Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7032/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Nagindas Shah, Acit, Circle – 19(1), 506-B, Walkeshwar Chandanwala 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Chs Ltd. 4, R. R. Thakkar Road, Tardeo Road, Walkeshwar, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400006 Pan: Aaqps1861H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Rajni Roy (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Rajni Roy (DR)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…usiness or profession shall be allowed while computing the income under the head ‘profit and gains of the business’ except where the capital is borrowed for acquisition of the asset. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA builders Ltd vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest claimed on money borrowed against interest-free advances to related concern is allowable if same is advanced under business expediency. The relevant finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: “It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized by the assessee in its own business, but had been…

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pci Ltd., New Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7959/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 7302/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. PCI Limited, ACIT, 19 – Rajendra Park, Circle : 19 (2), Vs. New Delhi – 110 060. New Delhi. PAN: AAACP1565E A N D ITA. No. 7959/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, M/s. PCI Limited, Circle : 19 (2), Vs. 19 – Rajendra Park, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 060. PAN: AAACP1565E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri SatishAggarwal, C. A.; Department by: Shri M. Barnwal, S…

Pci Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 7302/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri SatishAggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. D. R

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I–2”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 7302/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. PCI Limited, ACIT, 19 – Rajendra Park, Circle : 19 (2), Vs. New Delhi – 110 060. New Delhi. PAN: AAACP1565E A N D ITA. No. 7959/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, M/s. PCI Limited, Circle : 19 (2), Vs. 19 – Rajendra Park, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 060. PAN: AAACP1565E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri SatishAggarwal, C. A.; Department by: Shri M. Barnwal, S…

Gokaldas Images Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl C.I.T

In the result, the ground No

ITA 667/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sri.Vilas V.Shinde, CIT-DR

…olved in giving interest free advances of Rs.7 crores to its subsidiary and further the same was given on business purpose only. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v. CIT(A) & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 1, the learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure attributable to the above said amount of Rs.7 crore. 5. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the explanation furnished by the assessee only establishes the remote connection and the same could not be consid…

Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing (India) Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2571/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing The Income Tax Officer, (India) Limited, Ward-4(3), Surat. Vs C-401/403, Diamond World, Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. Pan: Aaocs 9292 D Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271

…ischarge as to which activities are essential in the business and how such activities are to be carried out by the businessmen. To support his submission, the ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court on S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. Senior Counsel further submits that ld.CIT(A) erroneously held that expenses were incurred by the assessee for an illegal business particularly in view of ban on sale of rough diamonds from 14 Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing (India) Limited., Surat. Zimbabwe imposed by UNA under Kimberly Process. The learned Senior Counsel submits that…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. G S Pharmbutor P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6716/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR

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

…(All.) 7 ITA No.6716/Del./2018 (iii) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) (iv) CIT vs. Bharti Televenture Ltd. 200 Taxman 39 (Del.)(Mag.) (v) CIT vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR (All.) (vi) S.A. Builders vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, he pleaded that no disallowance could be made. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that when assessee has mixed fund then it is difficult to point out that the loan and advances given to the sister concern are out of own funds because there cannot be any separate identification of source of…

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Viney Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6471/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…ccording to him this expense is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act because the borrowing was for the business purpose to have control over Vimercati SPA in order to expand their business, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC). Second contention of the ld. AR is that the borrowing was for the financial year 2011-12 relevant for the assessment year 2012-13 and in the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the gain or loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation was accepted by the department. So, to have the regard to the rule of consistency, ld.…

Viney Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6028/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…ccording to him this expense is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act because the borrowing was for the business purpose to have control over Vimercati SPA in order to expand their business, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC). Second contention of the ld. AR is that the borrowing was for the financial year 2011-12 relevant for the assessment year 2012-13 and in the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the gain or loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation was accepted by the department. So, to have the regard to the rule of consistency, ld.…

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR

Section 14A

…It was stated that the assessee did not receive any interest on the amounts advanced to SML. It was contended that interest paid on borrowed funds is an allowable deduction as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court S.A.Builders Limited v. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), since SML had utilized the funds so advanced for the purpose of the business. 5. The A.O., however, rejected the contentions of the assessee. The A.O. held that the assessee has not rendered any professional or technical services to the company. It was further held by the A.O. that the amount so received by the assessee from SML even if it i…

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 208/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR

Section 14A

…It was stated that the assessee did not receive any interest on the amounts advanced to SML. It was contended that interest paid on borrowed funds is an allowable deduction as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court S.A.Builders Limited v. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), since SML had utilized the funds so advanced for the purpose of the business. 5. The A.O., however, rejected the contentions of the assessee. The A.O. held that the assessee has not rendered any professional or technical services to the company. It was further held by the A.O. that the amount so received by the assessee from SML even if it i…

Sri. Mukesh Gupta, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2739/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR

Section 14A

…It was stated that the assessee did not receive any interest on the amounts advanced to SML. It was contended that interest paid on borrowed funds is an allowable deduction as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court S.A.Builders Limited v. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), since SML had utilized the funds so advanced for the purpose of the business. 5. The A.O., however, rejected the contentions of the assessee. The A.O. held that the assessee has not rendered any professional or technical services to the company. It was further held by the A.O. that the amount so received by the assessee from SML even if it i…

S.Ramamirtham, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 5(4), Chennai

In the result, the revision order is quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 959/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri S. Ramamirtham, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old No.19, New No.33, Corporate Ward -5(4), Sarvanalayam, Chennai – 34. P.S. Sivaswamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aadpr 0369J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Chennai U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order No.Pcit- 5/Ito(Hq)/Sr/263-4/2018-19 Dated 20.02.20219. The Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Corporate Ward-5(4), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Vide His Order Dated 30.06.2016 U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Pcit Revising The Assessment U/S.263 Of The Act, Revising The Assessment Order Framed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Under Limited Scrutiny Under Cass By Issuing Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Dated 31.08.2015. The Assessee Has Challenged This Issue On Jurisdiction As Well As On Merits I.E., Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Read With Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & (Iii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’) I.E., Interest Disallowance & Disallowance Of Club Expenses.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 10(33)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ity of club expenses of Rs.59,175/-, it was contented that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and been rightly claimed as business expenditure. For this, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd., vs. CIT, (2007) 288 ITR 1. 4.2 In view of the above, the ld.AR stated that firstly on jurisdiction, the AO has conducted all enquiries and moreover this was a limited scrutiny assessment and assessee filed relevant details before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated 28.06.2016. Moreover on merits of both the issues, i.e., disallowance u/s.14A…

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…same has not been incurred for the purpose of business. The Ld AO has not brought any fact on record that the expenditure has not been incurred for the purpose of business. We are relying on following judgment in this regard: • S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) •CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) •Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U'P: 1181TR 200 (SC). •CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del HC) •CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd., 331 ITR 401 (P&H HC) (FB) • Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Cen…

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

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

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

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

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

Deepak Nagindas Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-19 (1), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pci Ltd., New Delhi

Pci Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

Gokaldas Images Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl C.I.T

Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing (India) Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Surat

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. G S Pharmbutor P.Ltd, New Delhi

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Viney Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

Viney Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

Sri. Mukesh Gupta, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

S.Ramamirtham, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 5(4), Chennai

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal