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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Alwar vs. Shri Kishan Lal Agarwal, Alwar

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 97/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 A.C.I.T., Cuke Kishan Lal Agarwal, Vs. Circle-2, Prop.-M/S Shree Balaji Cattle Alwar. Feeds, G1-112, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, Alwar (Raj) Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aeypa 8480 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Solitary Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,28,000/- Made U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act, Without Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & The Material Brought On Record.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…entities is for the business purpose, therefore, the entire interest paid by the assessee is liable to be allowed as business expenditure. Moreover, we also draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) in which the concept of “commercial expediency” was used. Thus, according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the funds of business are diverted for interest free loans, the main criteria for permissibility of interest on 10 ITA 97/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs Kishan Lal Agarwal those funds are based on whether it was for commercial expediency or not. The…

M/S. Brigade Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30th Floor WTC, The Dy. Commissioner of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. PAN – AAACB 7459 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee agai…

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 45Section 53A

…had a right to challenge the disallowance and he ought to have given a finding in this regard. 4. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd., vs. CIT (288 ITR 1), the advances were in the course of business and in the interest of business and consequently the deduction as claimed was liable to be allowed in full especially when the appellant had sufficient non-interest bearing funds. 5. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs.25,76,253/- towards alleged undisclosed scrap…

M/S Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…gard to the circumstances of the case……it is settled position in law that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profits”. 4.5.6 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.5.7 For the aforesaid reasoning and the judgments relied on, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the expenditure also u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. 4.5.8 Now coming to the decision relied on by the learned DR, we are of the view that the above orders of Bangalore Bench of ITAT are distinguishable on facts. In the cases c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…gard to the circumstances of the case……it is settled position in law that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profits”. 4.5.6 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.5.7 For the aforesaid reasoning and the judgments relied on, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the expenditure also u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. 4.5.8 Now coming to the decision relied on by the learned DR, we are of the view that the above orders of Bangalore Bench of ITAT are distinguishable on facts. In the cases c…

M/S.Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…gard to the circumstances of the case……it is settled position in law that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profits”. 4.5.6 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.5.7 For the aforesaid reasoning and the judgments relied on, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the expenditure also u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. 4.5.8 Now coming to the decision relied on by the learned DR, we are of the view that the above orders of Bangalore Bench of ITAT are distinguishable on facts. In the cases c…

M/S.Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…gard to the circumstances of the case……it is settled position in law that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profits”. 4.5.6 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.5.7 For the aforesaid reasoning and the judgments relied on, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the expenditure also u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. 4.5.8 Now coming to the decision relied on by the learned DR, we are of the view that the above orders of Bangalore Bench of ITAT are distinguishable on facts. In the cases c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…gard to the circumstances of the case……it is settled position in law that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profits”. 4.5.6 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.5.7 For the aforesaid reasoning and the judgments relied on, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the expenditure also u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. 4.5.8 Now coming to the decision relied on by the learned DR, we are of the view that the above orders of Bangalore Bench of ITAT are distinguishable on facts. In the cases c…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…T 49 ITR 561 (All) • EMC Machine Works Vs. CIT 49 ITR 650 (All) • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo 76 ITR 690(SC) • State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty 60 ITR 239 (SC) • Kachwala Germs Vs. CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) 6.3 The assessee also submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that the replies were furnished to the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. The said submission of the assessee has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 18 to 21 of the impugned order which is reproduced verbatim as under: i) Reply dated 15.11.2017 (page of Paper Book…

The DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…year under consideration as the same was introduced in the statute only with effect from Asst Year 2004-05 and not applicable for earlier years. 6.11. We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders v CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 would be squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: "In our opinion, the decisions relating to section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to section 36(l)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in the de…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/31ST BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 44 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA 223/Coch/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI-I, KOCHI, INCOME TAX OFFICES, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/Appellant: M/S. A…

Mukesh Kumar, Bhattu vs. ITO Ward - 1, Fatehabad

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

ITA 6443/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…ated 8.2.2011 S. Balkishan Jagannath Goyal HUF) vs. Dy. CIT Allahabad Bench i) ITA No. 249 & 261/ALLD/2018 dated 27.11.2020 Rajesh Bajaj vs. DCIT 5 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 288 ITR 1 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cased of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 379 ITR 347, he submitted that once trading transactions were genuine and accepted as such, then, such expenditure is in accordance with the law. He accordingly submitted that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 8.…

Moonrock Hospitality (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-17(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5895/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Moonrock Hospitality (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, C-561, Defence Colony, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aafcm7112H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shaswat Bajpai, Advocate & Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Dr. Shaswat Bajpai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…AO disregarding the argument of the assessee that loan had been advanced on account of commercial expediency and, therefore, no disallowance could be made in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that when the assessee has borrowed money and invested the same in its subsidiary companies with a view to acquire control of a new asset, such interest paid on borrowed capital has to be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. I find merit in the above arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Hon’…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3559/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-1 ” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 The DCIT, M/s. Jaypee Capital Central Circle-29, Services Ltd., FA-45, Room No.318, 3rd Floor, vs. Shivaji Enclave, ARA Centre, New Delhi – 110 027. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. PAN AAACJ0628A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, CIT-DR Shri Ved Jain, Sr. Advocate For Assessee : And Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date of Hearing : 23.06.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3558/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-1 ” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 The DCIT, M/s. Jaypee Capital Central Circle-29, Services Ltd., FA-45, Room No.318, 3rd Floor, vs. Shivaji Enclave, ARA Centre, New Delhi – 110 027. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. PAN AAACJ0628A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha, CIT-DR Shri Ved Jain, Sr. Advocate For Assessee : And Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date of Hearing : 23.06.…

Cybermate Infotek Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2256/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 37

…mpliance with statutory provisions, i.e. accounting standards and also requirement of statute are allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following cases: 1. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Ltd., ITA No. 2090/Hyd/2018. 2. SA Builders, 158 Taxmann 74 (SC) 3. West Bengal State Electricity Board, ITA no. 2126/Kol/2017. 4. Mahanagar Gas Ltd., 42 Taxmann.com 40 5. Fact Securities, 61 Taxmann.com 192 6. Pharmacia Health Care Ltd., 7. CIT Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd., ITA No. 848/2010 (HC Delhi) 8. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT, 80 Taxmann 61 )HC Gujarat) 6.4 On the other…

M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, (OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…have returned Rs.l1.34 crore to SIPL, it is submitted that the commercial expediency would essentially fall within the domain of a businessman. AO cannot decide as to how business to be conducted by an assessee. Reliance is placed on "S.A. Builders vs. CIT - 288 ITR 1 (SC)". In view of the above, AO was not justified in denying SO-IB(IO) deduction. The same be held so now. Merits: Completion of project before 31.03.12 On merits, AO denied deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on the alleged count that the housing project was not completed on or before 31.03.12 (i.e. five years from the end of FY 06-07 - since approval of proj…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel
Section 14A

…e assessee succeeded before CIT(A) who deleted the addition as per finding record at Para 20.1 of the impugned order. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of Apex I.T.As. No.5940 & 5941/DEL/2017 and CO No.5 & 6/DEL/2021 18 Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and M/s. Taparia Tools 372 ITR 605 (SC) while holding that assessing officer was not empowered to make addition of notional interest. 16.3 We have considered the assessment order and order passed by CIT(A). The issue under consideration is addition of interest over and above what has been charged by the assessee on loans given to group concerns on…

M/S P.S. Srijan Height Developers, Kolkata vs. PCIT-II, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 263

…the interest expenditure is held to be relatable to the partner’s current account (debit), the same was allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) as having been incurred in the course and for the purposes of business. In this regard, he relied on the decision of S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1). Additionally, he also reiterated the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) cited before the AO in support of the allowability of interest expenditure. So according to Ld. A.R., there can be no doubt that AO has discharged his duty as an 5 P. S. Srijan Height Developers , AY 2015-16 investigator an adjudi…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Heal Kraft India Pvt. Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3537/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…motion, advertisement and publicity expenses. It is a commercial decision taken by the assessee and the same cannot be questioned by the revenue. The ld AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd V. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd V. CIT reported in 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd reported in 254 ITR 377 (Del), wherein it was held that the assessee’s nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business had to be looked into from the point o…