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

Shri Giriraj Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 68

…) without giving a finding that the claim of expenditure is either excessive or bogus. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 66 (SC) as well as in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC). 14. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim by producing the supporting evidence. Therefore, the 10% disallowance restricted by the ld. CIT (A) is just and proper. 15. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relev…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2966/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…cial expediency has to be seen from a business man‟s point of view. The Revenue cannot put itself in the armchair of a businessman to decide the same. In this respect, we have taken guidance from the following judgments: i) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) ii) Hero Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) iii) DCIT Vs. EIH Ltd., (2016) 177 TTJ 25 ( Kolkata) 11. That further, in the submissions before us, the assessee has submitted that it had sufficient own funds in order to advance the same to its associate concerns. This is evident from page 9 and 14 of the paper book. We further observ…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1539/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…cial expediency has to be seen from a business man‟s point of view. The Revenue cannot put itself in the armchair of a businessman to decide the same. In this respect, we have taken guidance from the following judgments: i) S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) ii) Hero Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) iii) DCIT Vs. EIH Ltd., (2016) 177 TTJ 25 ( Kolkata) 11. That further, in the submissions before us, the assessee has submitted that it had sufficient own funds in order to advance the same to its associate concerns. This is evident from page 9 and 14 of the paper book. We further observ…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…0, whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same by relying on the ITAT's decision in assessee's own case for earlier AY 2006-07 & AY 2007-08 without appreciating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd, vs. CIT(Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), had specifically held that there can be no continuing presumption as to utilization for a non-business purpose, and the facts of each year have to be considered separately. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, where the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) was made on the basis of ratio laid down by the CIT(A) in assessee's own c…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…0, whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same by relying on the ITAT's decision in assessee's own case for earlier AY 2006-07 & AY 2007-08 without appreciating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd, vs. CIT(Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), had specifically held that there can be no continuing presumption as to utilization for a non-business purpose, and the facts of each year have to be considered separately. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, where the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) was made on the basis of ratio laid down by the CIT(A) in assessee's own c…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 459/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/s. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar. PAN: AAJFK0115D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/06/2019 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 458/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/s. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar. PAN: AAJFK0115D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R Revenue by : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/06/2019 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date…

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal

ITA 7424/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(9)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Greaves Cotton Ltd. ACIT Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAACG2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. ACIT Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. PAN: AAACG2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent by : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (DR) Date…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Advani Hotels & Resort ( India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7036/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 7036/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ACIT-3(1)(1) M/s. Advani Hotels & Vs. Room No. 607 Resort (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor 18-A & B, Jolly Maker Aayakar Bhavan Chamber II, Nariman M.K. Road Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAACR6389Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department by Shri Ashim Kumar Modi Date of Hearing 19.3.2019 Date of Pronouncement 3.6.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of…

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3416/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Praham India LLP S.V. Road, Patel Estate ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400 102 PAN – AAMFP3204H v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–31(2)(5), Mumbai ITA no.4044/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–31(2)(5), Mumbai v/s Praham India LLP S.V. Road, Patel Estate ……………. Respondent Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400 102 PAN – AAMFP3204H Assessee by : Shri Mayur Ki…

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…owed by the ld CIT(A). The ld A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his arguments: a)CIT Vs Yum Restaurants India Pvt Ltd. 371 ITR 139 (Delhi) M/s. Bhandar Power Ltd. b)CIT Vs Discovery Communication India 370 ITR 57 (Delhi) c)S.A Builders Vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) The ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered all the above aspects while passing the order and therefore the same needs to be affirmed on this issue. 23. After hearing both the sides and carefully perusing the materials as placed before us including the case laws cited by the rival parties, we observe that the assessee has hardly em…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3727/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…at the identical addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2003-04 has been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 22.10.2010 by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 9 (SC) and in that respect, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of S.A. Builders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the expression “for the purpose of business” includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency and it is immaterial if a…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…at the identical addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2003-04 has been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 22.10.2010 by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 9 (SC) and in that respect, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of S.A. Builders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the expression “for the purpose of business” includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency and it is immaterial if a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…at the identical addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2003-04 has been deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 22.10.2010 by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 9 (SC) and in that respect, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of S.A. Builders (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the expression “for the purpose of business” includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency and it is immaterial if a…

Sri. Shambulal G Chhabra vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 1145/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ecide what is correct or required for the conduct of assessee’s business in order to maximize profits. In support of the assessee’s contentions, the learned AR, inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S A Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the above, the learned AR prayed that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) amounting to Rs.48,66,556/- requires to be deleted. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the findings / action taken by the authorities below and submitted that disallowance of interest by the authorities below ought t…

ACIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Associated Hospitality Ltd Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…lso found that investment was made in the subsidiary company with a similar line of business and for commercial expediency, therefore, no disallowance was warranted u/s.36(l)(iii), in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders, 288 ITR 1(SC). It is found that the purpose for which advances were made is covered by the principle of commercial expediency, therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,06,06,9067- made by the AO cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly…

DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World Wind Farms (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in both the cases are dismissed

ITA 119/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No.119 & 122/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 बिाम/ Dcit Cc 3(1) M/S. Wind World Wind R.No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Air Farms (India) Ltd., India Building, Nariman A-9, Enercon Tower, V. Point, Mumbai 400021 Veera Desai Road, Veera Indl. Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan:Aaace3530A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By: Shri. A.K Ghosh स िवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramlal Negi, Jm: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against Two Orders Dated 10.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- 51 In Respect Of Two Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Orders Dated 20.04.2015. Since The Facts Of The Case & The Issues Involved Are Identical In Both The Appeals. The Same Were Clubbed Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri. A.K GhoshFor Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57

…ing the cases relied upon by the party in the light of rival contentions. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., 336 ITR 315 (SC) and the S.A Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court Radhaswami Satsang 193 ITR 321. The relevant paras of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 7.1 I have considered the facts of the case, contentions of the assessee as also the order of the AO. It is observed that the assessee had availed term loan of Rs 45 crores from Oriental Bank of Commerce fo…

M/S.Golflinks Software Park (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 339/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he test of “borrowed for the purpose of business of the Assessee” and interest expenditure will not be allowed as a deduction. The law on this issue is settled after the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), in which the concept of “commercial expediency” was used. Thus, where the funds of the business a diverted for interest free loans the main criteria for permissibility of interest on those funds are based on whether it was for commercial expediency or not. The phrase “commercial expediency” has following important traits as purpose as is expe…

M/S.Golflinks Software Park (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 338/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he test of “borrowed for the purpose of business of the Assessee” and interest expenditure will not be allowed as a deduction. The law on this issue is settled after the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), in which the concept of “commercial expediency” was used. Thus, where the funds of the business a diverted for interest free loans the main criteria for permissibility of interest on those funds are based on whether it was for commercial expediency or not. The phrase “commercial expediency” has following important traits as purpose as is expe…

M/S.Golflinks Software Park (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 337/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he test of “borrowed for the purpose of business of the Assessee” and interest expenditure will not be allowed as a deduction. The law on this issue is settled after the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), in which the concept of “commercial expediency” was used. Thus, where the funds of the business a diverted for interest free loans the main criteria for permissibility of interest on those funds are based on whether it was for commercial expediency or not. The phrase “commercial expediency” has following important traits as purpose as is expe…