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)

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…fact that the loans given were in the nature of commercial expediency. 4.4 The Learned CIT(A) had also failed to consider that disallowance cannot be made in cases where loan was given in mutual interest and commercial expediency- S.A Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 5. The appellant seeks your leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the grounds urged, at the time hearing. 5 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 3. The brief facts of the case extracted from ITA No.23/Chny/2018, for the assessment year 2011-12 are that the assessee M/s. BGR…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…fact that the loans given were in the nature of commercial expediency. 4.4 The Learned CIT(A) had also failed to consider that disallowance cannot be made in cases where loan was given in mutual interest and commercial expediency- S.A Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 5. The appellant seeks your leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the grounds urged, at the time hearing. 5 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 3. The brief facts of the case extracted from ITA No.23/Chny/2018, for the assessment year 2011-12 are that the assessee M/s. BGR…

Gautam R. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 27 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6435/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

…T vs. Gopikrishna Muralidhar reported in 47 ITR 469 ii) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs CIT reported in 134 ITR 219 iii) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 3.2. We have already held hereinabove that amount invested in partnership firm by the assessee partner is certainly for business purpose and hence, there cannot be any disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6321/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e businessman and decide how and when loss is to be claimed, when the fact of incurring the loss in the normal course of the business is not doubted. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders reported in 288 ITR 1(SC) and Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement reported in 254 ITR 377 (Del). w) In para 41, the ldCIT(A) relies on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Conwest (P) Ltd. vs. First ITO reported in 7 ITD 314 and holds that the business loss appearing in the audited accounts needs to be allowed. x) In para 43, the ld CIT(A)…

M/S. Bada Saab Designs Pvt., Mumbia vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)(30, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5305/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

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

…of M/s. KA Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was a business decision taken on the grounds of commercial expediency of the assessee company. In support of this, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). 5.3. The ld AR also filed a written reply on 4.6.2021 in response to the queries raised by the bench wherein it was stated that the hospitality business was carried on only by M/s KA Hospitality Pvt Ltd and not by the assessee and that the assessee company had merely invested in convertible debentures thereon. Since M/s KA Hospitality Pvt Lt…

M/S Iol Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-I, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…see has not been able to correlate or substantiate amount given to M/S G. drugs and pharmaceuticals Ltd (GDPL) out of commercial expediency. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • C.R. Auluck & Sons (2014) 360 ITR 93 (P&H) • S.A. Builders, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Malyalam Plantations (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Tulip Star Hotels (2012) 21 Taxmann 97 (SC) • Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 128 (Bom) • Hero Cycles (SC) Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008 • CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2017) 79 taxmann.com…

Neetu Juneja, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6547/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Membe [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 194Section 40a

…e learned CIT(A), it was argued that such amount was advanced for business purposes, and therefore, it was for commercial expediency. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders ltd. vs CIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), no disallowance is called for. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground holding that no plausible explanation was offered for the query raised on this issue except stating that it was needed for business dealings. From the various details furnished by the assessee, we do not find what was the reason for giving such advance. The com…