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

Healkraft Pharma India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Corporate Range- 2, Chennai

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

ITA 3345/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…

M/S. Davanam Constructions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 314/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…was not at all used for business purposes. In other words, it was in turn advanced by Amethyst Hospitality (P) Ltd. to related parties without any interest. 8. Before us, the assessee strongly relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in S.A. Builders v. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that though interest expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Thus, whether the business funds was diverted for interest free loans to subsidiaries, the main criterion for allowability of those fund…

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…est as they cannot sit in the arm chair of 6 ITA 25/JP/2021_ Puneet Talera Vs PCIT assessee to direct as to how the assessee should conduct its activities. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 where it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman…

Sh. Hanuman Prasad Goyal, Bikaner vs. ITO, Suratgarh

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 151/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 402

…9. After careful analysis of the orders passed by the authorities below and the arguments advanced by the assessee, we are of the view that while making the additions, the A.O. had merely relied upon the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 288 ITR 1 and Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs CIT 324 ITR 396 (Del). However, the facts and the pari materia contained in that judgment is not applicable to the 7 ITA 151/Jodh/2017 Hanuman Prasad Goyal Vs ITO facts of the present case. In these very cases, it was categorically held that “once it is borne out from the record that the assessee had borrowe…

DCIT Circle- 3 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Investment & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 37/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 37/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle – 3(3)(1), M/S Reliance Industrial R. No. 609, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Investment & Holdings Ltd. 9Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iv, 222 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-5053-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Bora, Ld. Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 24/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29/12/2016. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Amount Has Been Given On Commercial Expediency Without Appreciating That The Assessee Has Not Given Any Credible

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Bora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…nd as a measure of 5 M/s Reliance Industrial Investment & Holdings Ltd. Assessment Year: 2013-14 commercial expediency, loans were granted at concessional rate. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders V/s CIT (288 ITR 1) which held that money could be said to be advanced to a sister concern for commercial expediency. If the holding company advances borrowed money to subsidiary and the funds were used by the subsidiary for the purposes of business, the assessee would be entitled for deduction of interest on borrowed funds. 5.4 However, Ld. AO opined that there was…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…he business interest of the appellant. While dealing with the issue of allowability of interest on borrowed funds which were advanced to sister concerns free of interest, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) where it was held that for the allowability of interest, what is relevant is whether the interest-free loan given to the sister concern is on account of commercial expediency. The AR of the appellant contended that in view of the rule laid down by the Apex Court, the expenditure incurred by the appellant deserves to be treated as expenditure la…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…he business interest of the appellant. While dealing with the issue of allowability of interest on borrowed funds which were advanced to sister concerns free of interest, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) where it was held that for the allowability of interest, what is relevant is whether the interest-free loan given to the sister concern is on account of commercial expediency. The AR of the appellant contended that in view of the rule laid down by the Apex Court, the expenditure incurred by the appellant deserves to be treated as expenditure la…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…he business interest of the appellant. While dealing with the issue of allowability of interest on borrowed funds which were advanced to sister concerns free of interest, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) where it was held that for the allowability of interest, what is relevant is whether the interest-free loan given to the sister concern is on account of commercial expediency. The AR of the appellant contended that in view of the rule laid down by the Apex Court, the expenditure incurred by the appellant deserves to be treated as expenditure la…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…he business interest of the appellant. While dealing with the issue of allowability of interest on borrowed funds which were advanced to sister concerns free of interest, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) where it was held that for the allowability of interest, what is relevant is whether the interest-free loan given to the sister concern is on account of commercial expediency. The AR of the appellant contended that in view of the rule laid down by the Apex Court, the expenditure incurred by the appellant deserves to be treated as expenditure la…

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Kamarhatty Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ompany borrowed huge fund on interest by way of Secured and Unsecured loan on which Interest amounting to RS.1,65,09,890/- was claimed as deduction out of income earned. The assessee company relied on decision of S.A. Builders Ltd v CIT (A) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1 ( SC) for not charging interest on sum advanced to Subsidiary. But the aforesaid argument and decision cited by the assessee company & A/R is not acceptable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Tulip Star Hotels Limited has observed that the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Lim…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…but not a conclusive finding that the assessee has made payments in the nature of quid pro quo for getting certain benefits. He further submitted that the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency”. In this case, the assessee has made investments on commercial grounds to derive certain benefits which cannot be considered as q…

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…but not a conclusive finding that the assessee has made payments in the nature of quid pro quo for getting certain benefits. He further submitted that the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency”. In this case, the assessee has made investments on commercial grounds to derive certain benefits which cannot be considered as q…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…but not a conclusive finding that the assessee has made payments in the nature of quid pro quo for getting certain benefits. He further submitted that the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency”. In this case, the assessee has made investments on commercial grounds to derive certain benefits which cannot be considered as q…

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…but not a conclusive finding that the assessee has made payments in the nature of quid pro quo for getting certain benefits. He further submitted that the issue is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency”. In this case, the assessee has made investments on commercial grounds to derive certain benefits which cannot be considered as q…

College Street Education Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2245/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. College Street Education Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaecc 5683Q …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2015-16 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.3.10.2018 Passed In Case No.0253/Cit(A)-1, Hyd/2017-18/2018-19 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appeared At Assessee'S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Exparte. 2. The Assessee'S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Challenges The Correctness Of Both The Lower

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) M/s. College Street Education Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN AAECC 5683Q …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 25.05.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2015-16 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, H…

M/S. Jmc Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 1310/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 194ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…utilized for giving interest free advances. The assessee has demonstrated that it has sufficient interest free funds. Hence no disallowance can be made on this ground also. Moreover, the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (S.C.) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus for all these reasons this ground of the assessee is allowed.” 20 We have perused the order (supra) passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal which is on the identical issue. When assessee is having huge interest free funds at its disposal, the presumption lies in favour of assessee…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT 86 ITR 11. (iv) CIT vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co.Ltd. 103 ITR 666. (v) Sassoon J David and Co.P. Ltd. vs CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). (vi) CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). (vii) SA Builders Limited vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). (viii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P. Ltd. 214 ITR 1(Bom). (ix) JR Patel & Sons P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 69 ITR 782 (Guj) . (x) CIT vs. Khambhatta Family Trust (215 Taxman 602) (Guj). (xi) Star India P. Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 (TM) (xii) National Panasonic (India) Ltd. vs. JCIT: ITA 3238/Del/2002 (Del) (xiii) Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT (Del)(2007) 111 IT…

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

ITA/272/2013HC Kerala04 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 260A

…itted that the Tribunal ought not to have indulged in lifting the corporate veil to disallow the claim of deduction. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions in SA Builders Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and Others [(2007) 288 ITR 1], Patnaik and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1986) 27 Taxman 287) and Union of India I.T.A. No.272/13 -:8:- and Others v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others [(2003) 263 ITR 706:[(2004) 10 SCC 1] in support of his contentions. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the loss incurred by t…

Ashish Jindal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 52(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4383/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ashish Jindal, Vs Ito, 8, Sundar Nagar, Ward-52(4), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aexpj2013H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th April, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal Recalled Its Order Vide Ma No.205/Del/2020, Order Dated 11.06.2021. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ashish Jindal, Vs ITO, 8, Sundar Nagar, Ward-52(4), Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AEXPJ2013H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Goel, CA Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11th April, 2019 of the CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. This appeal was earlier dismissed by…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 - J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC) -CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) -C1T v. Rockinan Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) -CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. : 345 ITR 241 (Del HC) It is a settled position that the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business would be a…