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)

M/S International Constructions Ltd., Bangalore vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2368/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] [Through Virtual Court]

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ly and exclusively for the purpose of business only.” In support of the submission as made above before the Ld. CIT(A), reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee company on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs. CIT 324 ITR 396. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee company on the issue under consideration and proceeded to confirm the disallowance made by the AO out of interest expenditure for the following re…

Skg Wooden Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 5245/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-2” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.5245/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. SKG Wooden Works The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., C-7/3, 3rd Floor, [vs. Ward – 23 (4), Vasant Vihar, New Delhi PIN – 110 057 New Delhi. PAN AAFCS2457M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ved Jain, Advocate. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. For Assessee : Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2020 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CI…

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 82/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…purpose because in the memorandum and the articles of the company, one of the objects the assessee-company mentioned is "investments in shares of other companies by the assessee" We rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SA Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 - SC, where in the Apex court has held as under: "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 in…

Sree Rayalaseema Green Steloy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1431/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi[Through Video Conferencing At Delhi] आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1431/H/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Sree Rayalseema Green Steloy Ltd., 1St Floor, G3, H.No.5-10-197A, B&C, Reliance Krishna Apartments, Hill Fort, Hyderabad – 500 004 ….. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No. Aahcs 9760 M Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), ….. "त् यथ"/Respondent Hyderabad

For Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivasu, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 43B

…hus only Rs.29,49,435/- and the disallowance of interest, if any, be made only on the net outstanding amount and not on the basis of gross amount of Rs. 48,24,785/-. He relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). Learned AR, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remitted to the file of AO for his decision after verification. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of CIT(A) and did not seriously opposed the prayer of Learned AR for remitting the matter back to AO. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material availab…

Gtl Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 588/Mum/2019 & Cross Objection No. 192/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacg3742L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 937/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Simi Samant, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.01.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Simi Samant, DR

Section 143(2)

…ssive Telecom Infrastructure Undertakings. Further assessee submitted that the funds invested in shares of GIL and CNIL were used for the purpose of business. The assessee relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders versus CIT in 288 ITR 1. Further assessee contended that the purpose for which borrowing is utilised by the assessee, the purpose should satisfy the test of commercial expediency. The assessee submitted that the borrowed funds were utilized for making investment in associate companies for the purpose of earning substantial operational business from those companies. The AR…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Abb Ltd

In the result, both the substantial questions

ITA/134/2011HC Karnataka09 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 46(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.134 OF 2011 BETWEEN 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 NEW DELHI. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S.ABB LTD (SUCCESSOR OF ABB INSTRUMENTATION LTD) KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD II FLOOR, EAST WING BANGALORE-560017. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRIV VINAY GIRI, ADV.)…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order…

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7751/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER ITA No.7751/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. ITO, 599, 2nd Floor, Gandhi Cloth Ward-46(3), Market, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AADPA0736C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA Respondent by Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25.02.2020 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT,A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 26/09/2018 passed by the Ld. CI…

Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 5375/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar KalaFor Respondent: Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR)

Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Manoj Shivyag Singh DCIT Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. PAN: ASJPS4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar Kala (AR) Respondent by : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing : 17.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under Section 253…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Kunnel Engineers & Contractors P. Ltd, Kochi

ITA 653/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 43B

…uction industry is not given loans. In support of his contentions, the Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: I.T.A. Nos. 653/Coch/2019 & 04/Coch/2020 1. CIT vs. Alappatt Brothers (ITA No.1341/2009 dated 06/06/2016) (Ker.) 2. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 3. CIT vs. V.I. Baby and Co. (254 ITR 248) (Ker.) 4. Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. CIT (AIR 1979 SC 129) 5. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC) 6. CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (38 ITR 601) (SC) 7. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (208 ITR 989) (Bom.) 8. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (215 ITR 582) (Bom.) 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Cemen…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…part of sale consideration received in the form of non-compete fee liable for long capital gains. 2.6 It is submitted that the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed t…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…part of sale consideration received in the form of non-compete fee liable for long capital gains. 2.6 It is submitted that the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed t…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…part of sale consideration received in the form of non-compete fee liable for long capital gains. 2.6 It is submitted that the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed t…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…part of sale consideration received in the form of non-compete fee liable for long capital gains. 2.6 It is submitted that the non compete fee was only a nomenclature to avoid tax as held in the Apex Court's decision in the case of S.A. Builderes reported in 288 ITR 1. 2.7 It is submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of M/s Guffic chem Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (332 ITR 602) cannot be applied to the facts of the case since the issue is not whether to treat the non compete fee as capital or revenue receipt. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed t…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.9 ( Formerly Known As Vodafone South Ltd Now Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Limited), Chennai vs. ITO (TDS) Ward 1(6), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1535/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 194HSection 200Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 203

…is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Income Tax Officer cannot enter into the shoes of the assessee. (S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). (x) Regarding providing a vehicle it was very clear that by providing vehicle and getting list of expenses will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent. 48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Dis…

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.9 ( Formerly Known As Vodafone South Ltd Now Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Limited), Chennai vs. ITO (TDS) Ward 1(6), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1534/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 194HSection 200Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 203

…is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Income Tax Officer cannot enter into the shoes of the assessee. (S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). (x) Regarding providing a vehicle it was very clear that by providing vehicle and getting list of expenses will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent. 48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Dis…

ACIT TDS Circle 3, Chennai vs. Vodafone South Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1349/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 194HSection 200Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 203

…is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Income Tax Officer cannot enter into the shoes of the assessee. (S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). (x) Regarding providing a vehicle it was very clear that by providing vehicle and getting list of expenses will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent. 48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Dis…

ACIT TDS Circle 3, Chennai vs. Vodafone South Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 194HSection 200Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 203

…is not given any encouragement, the business will not grow. In that view of the matter, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Income Tax Officer cannot enter into the shoes of the assessee. (S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). (x) Regarding providing a vehicle it was very clear that by providing vehicle and getting list of expenses will not decide the relation-ship of Principal and Agent. 48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Dis…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Kol/2019 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs. Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, A/R

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…for spending more that 5%. This stand of the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be accepted inasmuch as how much the assessee spends legitimately is the decision of the assessee. The Revenue cannot question this expenditure as per the decision of the Apex Court in 288 ITR 1. I may clarify that the decision in Thakur Prasad Sao and sons Pvt. Ltd. was on the provisions of Sections 36 & 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to hold the assessee incorrect. The assessee succeeds in Grounds of appeal no. 2, 3, & 4.” 9. We have gone through the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and do n…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 113/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 2Section 250

…the losses with the business and the matte, in my considered view is covered by the view of the losses with the business and the matte, in my considered view is covered by the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The losses are, in my considered view to be examined from the point of view of the assessee, as it is n my considered view to be examined from the point of view o…

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

What is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

M/S International Constructions Ltd., Bangalore vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(3), Kolkata

Skg Wooden Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(4), New Delhi

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Sree Rayalaseema Green Steloy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Gtl Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Abb Ltd

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Kunnel Engineers & Contractors P. Ltd, Kochi

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.9 ( Formerly Known As Vodafone South Ltd Now Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Limited), Chennai vs. ITO (TDS) Ward 1(6), Chennai

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.9 ( Formerly Known As Vodafone South Ltd Now Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Limited), Chennai vs. ITO (TDS) Ward 1(6), Chennai

ACIT TDS Circle 3, Chennai vs. Vodafone South Ltd., Chennai

ACIT TDS Circle 3, Chennai vs. Vodafone South Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Ramesh Prasad Sao, Kolkata

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd., Kolkata