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

M/S. Lucina Land Development Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, grounds no

ITA 962/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Lucina Land Vs. Acit, Development Ltd., Circle-15(2), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcl2130N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…pra), is reproduced as under: “7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1, the CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the basis of Honble Supreme Court decision in case of SA Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1. The Assessing Officer has given observation that this amount has to be disallowed in the assessment order itself. The CIT(A) held as under: “GROUND NO. 2:- Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 143,912,048/capitalized in real estate project under development. The AO, is his assessment order, alleged th…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…अिधकरण “B” "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। म"। म"। म"। आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद" एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद" सम" । BEFORE SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपी…

Gem Engineering P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2831/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Gem Engineering P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 3/38, Shanti Niketan, Circle-10(1) New Delhi New Delhi AAACG2314E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Aditi Gupta, CA Respondent by Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 21/2/2018 passed by CIT(A)-4, New Delhi for assessment…

Shri Rajesh Natani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…n assessee is 17 ITA 233 & 234/JP/2020_ Rajesh Natani Vs ITO required to run business looking to the commercial expediency and several other factors. 9. Apex Court, in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT MANU/SC/8798/2006 : (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631 : (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), after considering what is commercial/business expediency, has observed as under: "The expression 'commercial expediency' is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a…

Shri Rajesh Natani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 253Section 36(1)(iii)

…n assessee is 17 ITA 233 & 234/JP/2020_ Rajesh Natani Vs ITO required to run business looking to the commercial expediency and several other factors. 9. Apex Court, in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT MANU/SC/8798/2006 : (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631 : (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), after considering what is commercial/business expediency, has observed as under: "The expression 'commercial expediency' is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a…

Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 425/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 37Section 37(1)

…of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount had been advanced for the purposes of business to its joint venture company Indus Tower Limited and grossly erred in disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles Ltd 379 ITR 347 (SC). 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred both on facts and in law in adding to the declared book profits under section 115JB, provision for gratuity amounting to Rs.1,32,03,725/- allegedly on the basis that the same is an unascertained liability and liable to be added as per clause (c) of Expla…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 558/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Biocon The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner IT(TP)A No. of Income Tax, 2009-10 20th KM, Hosur 230/Bang/2014 Road, LTU, Electronic City, Bangalore. Bangalore – The Joint IT(TP)A No. 560100. Commissioner 2011-12 557/Bang/2016 PAN: of Income Tax, AAACB7461R LTU, Bangalore. M/s. Biocon Ltd., 20th KM, Hosur The Joint Road, IT(TP)A No. Commissioner Electronic City, 2011-12 558/Bang/2016 of Income Tax, Bangalore – LT…

Biocon Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 557/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Biocon The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner IT(TP)A No. of Income Tax, 2009-10 20th KM, Hosur 230/Bang/2014 Road, LTU, Electronic City, Bangalore. Bangalore – The Joint IT(TP)A No. 560100. Commissioner 2011-12 557/Bang/2016 PAN: of Income Tax, AAACB7461R LTU, Bangalore. M/s. Biocon Ltd., 20th KM, Hosur The Joint Road, IT(TP)A No. Commissioner Electronic City, 2011-12 558/Bang/2016 of Income Tax, Bangalore – LT…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 396/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…complex, purchase of property etc. along with Mohan Project Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the advance was given for commercial expediency. Bank Certificate from HDFC Bank in support of the expenditure of Rs. 74,15,695/- is enclosed. In S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 395/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…complex, purchase of property etc. along with Mohan Project Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the advance was given for commercial expediency. Bank Certificate from HDFC Bank in support of the expenditure of Rs. 74,15,695/- is enclosed. In S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if…

Indira Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 394/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…complex, purchase of property etc. along with Mohan Project Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the advance was given for commercial expediency. Bank Certificate from HDFC Bank in support of the expenditure of Rs. 74,15,695/- is enclosed. In S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary for some business purpose, the assessee would, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans since the advance was given for commercial expediency. Further in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (Bom.) it was held that if…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…s. TCG Urban Infras. Holding P.Ltd A.Y 2007­08 TCG Urban Infras. Holding P.Ltd Vs. ACIT, C­2 (1), Kol Page 28 4. I observe that the law on this issue is settled after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd v. CIT(Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), in which the concept of "commercial expediency" was used. Thus, where the funds of the business a diverted for interest free loans the main criteria for permissibility of interest on those funds are based on whether it was for commercial expediency or not. The phrase "commercial expediency" has following important traits as established by cas…

Conwood Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-12(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-12(1)(2) Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Assessee) (Revenue) C.O. No. 55/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6447/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-12(1)(2) M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128D, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Bhavan, Churchgate, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…appeal the CIT(A) did not find any infirmity in the view taken by the A.O. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the reliance placed by the assessee on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited Vs. CIT(Appeals) & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) being distinguishable on facts would thus not assist its case. It was observed by the CIT(A) that while for in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) as the assessee had given interest free loan to its subsidiary for the latter‟s business purposes, therefore, it was considering the said fact that the Hon‟ble Apex Court had held that the interest ex…

Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 817/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 816/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 766/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 765/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 6226/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 6225/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 5741/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Najani [CIT] – D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…d the learned CIT – capital has correctly deleted the same. v. With respect to the advance to a subsidiary company which has been written off by the assessee he placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of S A Builders versus CIT 208 ITR 1 and stated that assessee has infused funds into the subsidiary company and Simon tenuously arranged term loan from IDBI for that company by giving its corporate guarantee. It was therefore stated that there was a drastic change in the mobile industry when the tariffs were reduced which became a disaster for the paging industry and therefore the sub…