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

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 2416/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

…d advance was given to the companies in various business activities such as sugar, power generation, packing and finances, etc. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). The claim of the assessee has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited was on review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made an addition representing the notional interest at the rate of 8% on the said loans granted to the…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 2415/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

…d advance was given to the companies in various business activities such as sugar, power generation, packing and finances, etc. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). The claim of the assessee has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited was on review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made an addition representing the notional interest at the rate of 8% on the said loans granted to the…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 2414/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

…d advance was given to the companies in various business activities such as sugar, power generation, packing and finances, etc. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). The claim of the assessee has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited was on review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made an addition representing the notional interest at the rate of 8% on the said loans granted to the…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 2413/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

…d advance was given to the companies in various business activities such as sugar, power generation, packing and finances, etc. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). The claim of the assessee has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited was on review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made an addition representing the notional interest at the rate of 8% on the said loans granted to the…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 2412/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

…d advance was given to the companies in various business activities such as sugar, power generation, packing and finances, etc. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). The claim of the assessee has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited was on review by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, made an addition representing the notional interest at the rate of 8% on the said loans granted to the…

M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 937/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 263

…disallow the proportionate interest on the interest credit of Rs.139.96 lakhs and Rs.16.78 crores given to an Associate Company, viz. SPEL Semi Conductor Ltd. in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT and others (288 ITR 1 (SC)). 4.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in directing the assessing officer to examine the fact whether the Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) of Rs.675 Lakhs made by the Appellants during the year 1999 were made out of their own funds or borrowed funds and decide the question of :- 3 -: allowability of interest on such ICDs. This will amou…

M/S. Rukmani Agencies, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 47(4), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1248/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1248/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Rukmani Agencies Vs. Ito, Ward-47(4), Kolkata P.K. Himmatsinghka, Aa-4, Salt Lake, Kol-64. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffr0072C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kr. Himmatsingh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…er concerns only. I.T.A No.1248/Kol/2018 M/s Rukmani Agencies This is not the Revenue’s case that the same lacks the element of commercial expediency between two sister concerns as per hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 & Hero Cycles Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347(SC). We draw support therefrom to conclude that the assessee’s act of advancing interest bearing funds to its sister concern involved commercial expediency and therefore, the impugned pro rata interest disallowance cannot be sustained. The same stands deleted. 9. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in ab…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…54 ITR 148 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andotan(2003) 263 ITR 706." Besides the above relevant para in the judgement there are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Limited 254 ITR 377. Sir, Para 31 & Para 32 SA Builders judgement(supra) stand extracted at Page 14 of Pb. & Hr. High Court case the copy of which as stated above is enclosed. These two paras read as- "31. We agree with the view taken by t…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…54 ITR 148 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andotan(2003) 263 ITR 706." Besides the above relevant para in the judgement there are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Limited 254 ITR 377. Sir, Para 31 & Para 32 SA Builders judgement(supra) stand extracted at Page 14 of Pb. & Hr. High Court case the copy of which as stated above is enclosed. These two paras read as- "31. We agree with the view taken by t…

Nilesh Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4376/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2013-14 Nilesh Jabarmal Jain Vs. ITO - 19(2)(4), Mumbai C/o. D.C. Bothra & Co. LLP (Respondent) (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st floor, Opp Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. PAN : ADZPJ6537F (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Respondent by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date of Hearing : 23/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-54, Mumbai dated…

Permali Wallce Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 222/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Permali Wallace Ltd. Acit-3(1) बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcp7557R Appellant By Miss Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 02.07.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 22.02.2016 By Acit- 3(1), Bhopal. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Permali Wallace Ltd. ACIT-3(1) बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AABCP7557R Appellant by Miss Nisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal at the instance of Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A…

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 208/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, CIT, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…also to write off the debt was a commercial decision and hence cannot be interfered with and the nature of the transaction cannot be changed. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) in support of this contention. ITA No.208/Hyd./2018 AY 2013-14 M/s Cambridge Technology Enterprises Ltd. 7.2. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 7.3. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, we find that a sum of Rs.28,22,76,596/- was undoubtedly the outsta…

M/S.Muthoot Bankers, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 93/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10Section 14A

…- and interest disallowance for not collecting any interest from Shri Thomas Muthoot can be made only if entire interest payable to all the other 7 partners had been considered in the accounts. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Munjal Sales Corporation 295 ITR 295. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs. Muthoot Finance Corporation 284 ITR 704. The firm is having the same system of accounting for all transactions. The matter is not clear from the order of the Tribunal. Further, Counsel for the Revenue…

M/S.Muthoot Bankers, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 92/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10Section 14A

…- and interest disallowance for not collecting any interest from Shri Thomas Muthoot can be made only if entire interest payable to all the other 7 partners had been considered in the accounts. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Munjal Sales Corporation 295 ITR 295. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs. Muthoot Finance Corporation 284 ITR 704. The firm is having the same system of accounting for all transactions. The matter is not clear from the order of the Tribunal. Further, Counsel for the Revenue…

M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…rly considering that the defaulting party M/s VTL is an unrelated party of appellant. It is not the duty of the AO to decide as to how the assessee should conduct business. This is a settled proposition. Reference to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT (A) is pertinent here, wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 4.9.4 The AO dis…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…rly considering that the defaulting party M/s VTL is an unrelated party of appellant. It is not the duty of the AO to decide as to how the assessee should conduct business. This is a settled proposition. Reference to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT (A) is pertinent here, wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 4.9.4 The AO dis…

Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6625/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ssing Officer are merely on the surmises and conjecture without considering the business expediency behind such expenses. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT(A), Civil appeal No.5811 of 2005 with 5812 of 2006, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). b) CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). c) CIT vs. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC). d) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del. HC) e) Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 (SC). f) Motilal Laxmichand Sanghavi vs. ACIT in ITA No.3110/Mum/2018 dated 26.07.2019. g) Harp…

M/S Neobytes Software Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 353/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 111ASection 143

…ot be questioned by the revenue. The assessing officer cannot assume the arm chair of the assessee and decide how the assessee must conduct its affairs. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was submitted that the action of the AO in taking the amount debited for assessment year 2011-12 towards directors' remuneration as sacrosanct and a valid yardstick to decide the remuneration paid in the previous years' is a process not known to law and thus the assessment order needs to set aside on this count alone in the interest of equ…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vatika Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3426/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR

…d appreciated by the ld. CIT (A) that the amount paid during the year under assessment was Rs.275.16 crores from internal accruals, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). Moreover, the AO in remand proceedings has not given any comments, for the reasons best known to him rather raised a bald objection that additional evidence sought to be led by assessee be not admitted as the 20 ITA Nos.2489 & 3426/Del./2014 assessee had already been granted adequate opportunity, thus has impliedly admitted the submission…

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2489/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR

…d appreciated by the ld. CIT (A) that the amount paid during the year under assessment was Rs.275.16 crores from internal accruals, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). Moreover, the AO in remand proceedings has not given any comments, for the reasons best known to him rather raised a bald objection that additional evidence sought to be led by assessee be not admitted as the 20 ITA Nos.2489 & 3426/Del./2014 assessee had already been granted adequate opportunity, thus has impliedly admitted the submission…