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

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 39/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

…range. A willing buyer in an open market shall pay minimum and not maximum price for goods and services . No business man can be compelled to maximize his profit. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1, quoting from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 377. 5.9.9.1The Ld. AR submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court on revenue neutrality in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 113 was misconstrued both by A.O. and CIT(A) taking a dramatic U turn th…

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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

…range. A willing buyer in an open market shall pay minimum and not maximum price for goods and services . No business man can be compelled to maximize his profit. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1, quoting from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 377. 5.9.9.1The Ld. AR submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court on revenue neutrality in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 113 was misconstrued both by A.O. and CIT(A) taking a dramatic U turn th…

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

…range. A willing buyer in an open market shall pay minimum and not maximum price for goods and services . No business man can be compelled to maximize his profit. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1, quoting from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 377. 5.9.9.1The Ld. AR submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court on revenue neutrality in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 113 was misconstrued both by A.O. and CIT(A) taking a dramatic U turn th…

DCIT - Circle -11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tops Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3445/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey # 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony , Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 136/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3445/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Topsgrup Service (I) Ltd., The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), (Formerly Known As Tops Security 2Nd Floor, Room No. 204, Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Survey 169, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Circle – 11(3)(1), M/S Tops Security Ltd., Room No. 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 5, Royal Palm Golf Country Club, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Marg, Survey 169, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 Pan: Aaact0160F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 14A

…16 to balance sheet. 7.3.9 Besides, all the loans were advanced to subsidiary companies only out of commercial expediency. Therefore, the advancing of loans is for business purpose as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, 158 Taxmann 74. 7.3.10 In the light of the foregoing, disallowance of proportionate interest on loans advanced to subsidiary companies is not warranted. 7.3.11 Therefore, interest disallowance of Rs. 7,81,586/- is hereby deleted.” 14. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition made on account of disallowance of notional interest out of the inte…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…of the board of directors and assume the said role to decide how much is a reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 16 14.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while agreeing with the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (supra) has held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The income-tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman wo…

Total Diagnosis (P) Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Bhopal

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

ITA 528/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Total Diagnosis Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-4(2) 203, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaact5844N

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…wance of Rs.45,11,593/- under section 36(1)(iii) out of interest payment on the ground that borrowed funds has not been utilised for business purpose without appreciating the ratio of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) AND Sundaram Fastners Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 773 Madras. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified either in law or on facts in arriving at the conclusion that the money advances to SKIPL was not for the purpose of commercial expediency without appreciating the fact that the amount was given interest free to the SKIPL in the F.Y. 2009-10 for the r…

M.G. Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7232/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7232 & 7233/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M.G. Consulting Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT-10(2)(2) 4, Chandan Niwas (old) Room No.209 1st Floor Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mathurdas Visanji Road Mumbai-400 020 Behind Andheri Gymkhana Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 069 PAN/GIR No.AAACN3292Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe, AR Revenue by Shri. Kailash Mangal, DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश P…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 802/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…pany. This has resulted in loss to the subsidiary company resulting in uncertainly over chances of recovery of loan given. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, it has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). I am of the considered opinion that the loan was given to the subsidiary company from 1997-98 as a measure of commercial expediency. Therefore, no disallowance can be made on this account u/s.36(1)(iii). The addition of Rs.11,23,686/- is hereby deleted.” Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 10.3. The l…

M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1384/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramanjaneyulu, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1384/Del./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, FA – 45, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi. (PAN : AAACJ0628A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, CA Shri Ashish Goel, CA Shri Akshit Goel, CA REVENUE BY : Shri B. Ramanjaneyulu, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 06.01.2020 Date of Order : 17.01.2020 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5601/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi submitted that since the amount in question have been given for commercial expediency, therefore, no addition could be made. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee-company has sufficient own funds as well as interest free borrowing funds which have been used to make these advances and these advances have been shown in the balance-sheet, copy of which is filed at page-10 of the PB to show that assess…

Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi submitted that since the amount in question have been given for commercial expediency, therefore, no addition could be made. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee-company has sufficient own funds as well as interest free borrowing funds which have been used to make these advances and these advances have been shown in the balance-sheet, copy of which is filed at page-10 of the PB to show that assess…

M/S. Ats Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3080/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…5601/D/2018 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi submitted that since the amount in question have been given for commercial expediency, therefore, no addition could be made. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee-company has sufficient own funds as well as interest free borrowing funds which have been used to make these advances and these advances have been shown in the balance-sheet, copy of which is filed at page-10 of the PB to show that assess…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1968/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…concern without charging interest. In the case of Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (supra), this Court has held as under: “We may refer to the judgment of Apex Court at this stage given in case of S.A.Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) where the question was whether interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan to sister concern should be allowed as deduction and the Apex Court ruled thus : “We have considered the submission of the respective parties. The question involved in this case is only about the allowability of the interest on borrowed fund…

Rubee Air Freight Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1822/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1822/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rubee Air Freight Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata “Basu House”, 2Nd Floor, 3, Chowringhee Approach, Kolkata – 700072, W.B "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr4323D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. M. Roy, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 17, Kolkata Dated 14.06.2018 Passed In Case No.329/Cit(A)-17/Kol/17-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 43B

…n’ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340(Bom). Coupled with this, the assessee has also made interest free advances to its sister concern (supra). Hon’ble apex court’s judgment in S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) holds that such interest free advances between group concerns carry the element of commercial expediency. We conclude in these facts and circumstances that both the lower authorities have erred in disallowing the impugned proportionate interest @14% of Rs.7,75,768/- in question. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. Necessary co…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2003/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed subsidiaries out of commercial expediency for the purpose of utilizing the same in the business of the subsidiaries is a allowable deduction in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. -vs.- CIT(Appeals) & Another (2006) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The said stand has been further affirmed by the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Supra.) & Bharti Televenture Ltd (Supra.) relying on the decision of the Apex Court. Further, from perusal of the Balance Sheet and the Audited accounts of the company, it leaves beyond doubt, the fact that the assessee had sufficient own f…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1821/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed subsidiaries out of commercial expediency for the purpose of utilizing the same in the business of the subsidiaries is a allowable deduction in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. -vs.- CIT(Appeals) & Another (2006) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The said stand has been further affirmed by the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Dalmia Cement (Supra.) & Bharti Televenture Ltd (Supra.) relying on the decision of the Apex Court. Further, from perusal of the Balance Sheet and the Audited accounts of the company, it leaves beyond doubt, the fact that the assessee had sufficient own f…

Smt. D. Sailaja, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above

ITA 2350/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2350/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. D. Sailaja, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam Vs. Income Tax, Extension, Nandanam, Non Corporate Circle Ii, Chennai 600 035. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaops2743J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Purshothaman, C.A. Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri J. Purshothaman, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. With regard to the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, by relying upon the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC) and the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 118 (Bom.), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for deleting the disallowance. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on rec…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1366/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1366/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Cir-2(1) Kolkata......................................………………………….................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................................................Respondent Ground Floor, Building Beta Bengal Intelligent Park, Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan: Aabcb 6203 A] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Saurabh Gupta, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 14, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtp, Vice-(Kz)

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

…e under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention the Appellant Company refers to and relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh [2007] 158 TAXMAN 74 (SC) equivalent to 288 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when 4 I.T.A. No. 1366/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. BIP Developers Pvt. Ltd. the investment in subsidiary or sister concern is commercial expedient interest payment on loans borrowed for such investments are allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) read with sec. 37(1) of the Act. The App…

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 167/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8(1), V/S. M/S Gujarat Nre Coke Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Ltd., 4Th Floor, Room No.6, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Commerce House, 2A, Square, Kolkata-69 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkatka-700 013 [Pan No.Aabcg 6225 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 154Section 43ASection 92B

…a actual loss suffer by the assessee. The assessee is able to establish a proximate nexus 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 losses are, in my considered view to be examined from the point of view of the assessee, as it is seen that these are regular losses / gains coming to the assessee year on year as it ins in the business of import and export of items, and it is a regular importer of cooking coal and exporter of metcoke. Further courts have held that such l…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1466/CHNY/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

…ghest fact finding authority, has arrived at the conclusion that there was a definite business expediency for granting such interest free advances by the assessee company. That being the case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT(288 ITR 1) would come into operation and no disallowance of proportionate interest was called for on the facts of the present case.. Appeal filed by the assessee company on this ground is hereby allowed.” 5.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of learned CIT(A), the Revenue has come in appeal before the tribunal and has raised ground number 4.1 and 4.2…