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 Tristar Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/69/2011HC Karnataka12 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 260

…the case of Sassoon J. David and Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) and the another decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and another, reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 6 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove that it had incurred business expenditure. It is further submitted that no material was produced with regard to the amount incurred by the appellant with regard to discounts and rebates and therefore, the Ass…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.10 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7371/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No.Aacce 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. PAN/GIR No.AACCE 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta (AR) Revenue by Ms. Nillu Jaggi (Jt.CIT) Date of Hearing 12/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1(WZ), Mumbai (in short, the DRP) U/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated…

Hill Point Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 2(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6551/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Hill Point Investment & Finance Pvt. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(4) Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Crystal Shopping Arcade, Maharshi Karve Marg, Vs. S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400077 Pan – Aaach1150M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…herein submitted that the same was prompted by the principle of commercial expediency. In support of his aforesaid claim, the ld. A.R had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builder Limited Vs. CIT(A) & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). Also, our attention was drawn towards certain correspondence between the assessee and some of the aforementioned parties, which revealed that the amounts advanced by the assessee were towards booking of under construction properties in their projects. We find that as the CIT(A) had summarily rejected the assesse‟s entitlement for claim of ded…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3927/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

Section 143(3)

…ear 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 d…

Motorola Mobility Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with about directions for statistical purposes

ITA 1291/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Motorola Mobility Chennai Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. 12Th Floor, Block D, Dlf Circle-2 Cyber Greens, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon Gurgaon -122001 Pan No. Aafcp2216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Motorola Mobility Chennai Pvt. Vs DCIT Ltd. 12th Floor, Block D, DLF Circle-2 Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon Gurgaon -122001 PAN No. AAFCP2216D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Advocate Sh. Suvinay Dash, Advocate Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Sharma, SR DR Date of hearing: 21/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 20/02/2020 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This appeal is filed by Motoro…

DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Cent. Range - 4, Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6549/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Ms. Aarti Sathe Advocate

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 5

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6550/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) DCIT Central Circle-4(2) M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd. Room No. 1918, 19th Floor, 5th Floor, Umang Tower, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Mindspace, Malad Link Road, Point, Mumbai-400021 Malad (West), Mumbai-64. PAN: AABCS4383A Appellant Respondent ITA No. 6073/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd. DCIT Central Circle-4(2) 5th Floor, Umang Tower, Room No. 1918, 19th Floor, Mindspace, Malad Link Road, Vs. Air India…

M/S Golflinks Software Park Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1338/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Golflinks Software Park Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(1)(2), 1St Floor, Embassy Point, 150 Vs. Bengaluru. Infantry Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabcg 7106 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 36(1)(iii)

…sessee. But this is another argument of the assessee that there was business expediency in giving interest free advances to sister concerns. It was submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of SA Builders as reported in 158 Taxmann 74(SC), the disallowance should be deleted. At this juncture, a query was raised by the Bench regarding evidence of business expediency but nothing could be shown by learned AR of the assessee on this aspect. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 719/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)

…phrase, as held by many legal pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowabiity of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the phrase “commercial expediency”. By using this phrase, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept of “for purpose of business” further. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as “an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessm…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1993/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1993/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Aha Holdings Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Trade View Building, Income Tax-6, बनाम/ Oasis Complex, Kamala Mills, Room No. 515, 5 Th Floor, Gate No.4, Pandurang Budhkar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Vs. Marg, Lowe Parel, Karve Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai -400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aafcs6404E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hioro Rai, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hioro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…iness and the same is mad in nature of commercial expediency.” 9. The legal position was also explained by explaining the provision of section 37(1) of the Act as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and also the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 396 (Delhi) and also another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 121 Taxman 706 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered the issue of reasonableness of…

M/S. Mavoor Trade Links, Calicut vs. The ACIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

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

…phrase, as held by many legal pronouncements, is the most important yardstick for the allowabiity of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the phrase “commercial expediency”. By using this phrase, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept of “for purpose of business” further. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as “an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessm…