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 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 367,514 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 14A Section 1961 Section 148 Section 147 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediency interest free advances section 36(1)(iii)business expediency disallowance of interest expenditure section 36(1)section 36 revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 capital expenditure section 14a

Judgments citing S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order dated

ITA/275/2015HC Karnataka01 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 27

…CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES GINNING ANDPRESSING SOCIETY VS. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 17 (GUJARAT), 'CIT VS MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD.,', (1964) 53 ITR 40 (SC), 'CIT VS. DELHI SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD', (1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC), 'S.A.BUILDERS VS. CIT (A)', (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and KANHAIYALAL DUDHERIA VS. JCIT', (2020) 113 TAXMANN.COM 217 (KAR.). 8 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue while inviting the attention of this court to Section 37 of the Act submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove the fact that the expenses were incurred for the purposes of business. However, the a…

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4852/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4853/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mumbai Sez Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34 P. D. Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Vs. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Floor, Mumbai-400020. Masjid, Mumbai-400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10. Ita. No.4852/M/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

…e. The advance was given to the sister concern who is also engaged in the business of land development and used it for business purpose. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. vs CIT (207) 288 ITR 1 (SC). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and restore the issue before the AO to examine the matter of controversy denova. ISSUE NO. 9 & 10 19. These issues are general in nature which nowhere requires any adjudication. ITA. Nos.4852 & 4853/M/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 Accordingly we part…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ly with reference to its specific provisions and the Income-tax Authority is estopped from stepping into the shoes of any assessee so as to question its rationality, prudence or acceptability from a common sense point of view [S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (S.C); CIT Vs. Dhanraj Girji Raja Narasingherji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC); CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)]}. 14.1 So long as the transaction meets the specific conditions laid down in the Act, an attempt to negate it or interpret it by applying the yardsticks of rationality, prudence etc., which in any case is highly subjective, would…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7510/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…not of the Revenue Department. Even otherwise, ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on account of incidental third party benefit is not permissible. 19 ITA No.7509/Del./2017 ITA No.7510/Del./2017 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. 30. CIT 289 ITR 26 (SC) has held that, “the expression “commercial expediency” is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurred for the purpose of business. Such expenditure may not have been incurred under legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of “commercial ex…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

M/S Mahavir Techno Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Cricle, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 332/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

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

…of the authorities below the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Abhishek Industries Vs. CIT (286 ITR 1) but the said decision is no longer good law in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of S. A Builders Vs CIT (288 ITR 1). We have also noted that the Assessing Officer has simply brushed aside assessee's explanation about commercial justification for the interest free advances by observing that "the reply filed by the assessee is considered but not found convincing". Beyond these vague observations, there is not even a whisper about reasons of rejecting assessee's j…

M/S Maya Ventures Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(2)

The appeal is allowed

ITA/136/2018HC Karnataka18 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260

…114, Page-438) has held that the lump-sum amount set apart for payment of gratuity at future dates will constitute reserve for the purpose of computation of capital. 10. In the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT (Appeals) and Another reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the phrase for the purpose of business expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “In order to decide whether interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan to a sister concern (e.g., a subsidiary of the assessee) should be allowed as a deduction under Se…

Ashwinbhai Chunilal Bhayani, Okha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Dwarka

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 364/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)

…commercial expediency. We request your Honour to consider the professional income under the head income from business and profession and allow the expenses claimed. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "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 business expend…

Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani, Okha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Dwarka

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 363/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)

Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. PAN No. ADQPS 6311 K Assessee by Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue by Shri K.C. Badhok, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R PER: BENCH This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11/04/2017 for the AY. 2013-14 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s…

Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 14A

…ing one’s business sis the prerogative of the business man, as are the related matters like incurring expenses, making investments, obtaining loans and providing advances, etc. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC) is relevant. The Hon’ble Court held in the above ratio reiterated the settled position in the past that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit. While considering the claim of deduction of any expenditure, income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. Once it…

Sagar Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2945/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2945/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sagar Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, ‘Sagar’, Opp. Kamdhenu Circle-4(1)(2), Complex, Nr. Sahajanand Ahmedabad College, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN No. AADCS9311E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AR Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR 04.01.2021 Date of Hearing 06.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER M…

Income Tax Officer 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Evita Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7200/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

…diversion of interest bearing funds as a interest free loans to the sister concern? 5. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the of the case and in law, Ld, CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of SA Builders (288 ITR 1) as well as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No.3155 of 2009) holding that the funds were advanced to sister concerns out of business expediency when in fact the assessee had obtained funds to purchase land? Apropos first issue :-Ground no 1 to 4 3. Brief facts are that the groun…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, HON’BLE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 413/Ahd/2016 2010-11 DCIT Edelweiss Financial Circle-1(3), Advisors Ltd. Ahmedabad-380015 [Formerly Known Anagram Stock Broking Ltd] ‘Anagram House’ Near H. L. Commerce College, Stadium Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN No. AABCA9956F 2. 445/Ahd/2016 2012-13 DCIT Edelweiss Financial Circle-1(3), Advisors Ltd.…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., ( Formerly Known Anagram Stock Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. ( Amalgamating Company Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…diaries in order to increase the market share both in terms of production and expanded customer base and therefore, the income would be taxable. Further, the CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 to draw an inference that when the investments are made out of commercial expediency, expenses incurred are allowed as revenue deduction, in the similar manner, any gains earned on such investments will also be taxable. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, it is undisputed fact that investment made by the assessee in shares of ‘M/s. Havel…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…low depreciation solely for the reason that during the impugned year the Appellant was not engaged in hotel business but was engaged in F&O operations. 4.4.8 For the above proposition he relied on the judgment in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, [2007] 288 ITR 1(SC), it was held as under: “ 34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably cl…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt.Ltd

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/77/2015HC Karnataka02 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(45)Section 260Section 260ASection 709(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.77 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-11, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT. LTD., 7 & 12, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560022 PAN: AAACG 6637Q. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.…

DCIT-8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 976/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Mr. H.N. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…able with the assessee.” 6.2 The contention of the Ld. DR that the decision in Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (supra) is to be considered is rejected on the ground that it related to the reconsideration of the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the following observations were made : “…..Where it is obvious that a holding company has a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would, in our opinion ordinarily be entitled to deduction of i…