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 366,470 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, C-V, Ludhiana vs. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Hon'ble ITAT and High Court while contesting disallowance u/s 14A. The same decision also holds good for the purposes of section 36(1)(iii). 12. As confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 288 ITR 1 where it has been held as under- "In order to decide whether interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan to a sister concern (e.g. a subsidiary of the assessee) should be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one has to enquire whether the loan was given by the assessee as a measur…

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACK8480D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1099/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. As per calculations given in para 5(h), disallowance of Rs.8,64,35,962/- is required to be made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from various sources, internal ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

56. As a result, as regards the issue of allowance/disallowance of

ITA 1098/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. As per calculations given in para 5(h), disallowance of Rs.8,64,35,962/- is required to be made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from various sources, internal ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

ITA 1097/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…As per calculations given in para 5(h), disallowance of Rs. 8,64,35,962/- is required to be made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from various sources, internal ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

ITA 1091/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…As per calculations given in para 5(h), disallowance of Rs. 8,64,35,962/- is required to be made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from various sources, internal ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Kota

ITA 1090/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…As per calculations given in para 5(h), disallowance of Rs. 8,64,35,962/- is required to be made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Va. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial expediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds for making investment in Units of Mutual Funds) as well as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. (286 ITR 1) (since the funds borrowed from various sources, internal ac…

Income Tax Officer Ward 52(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Novel Infratech, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO, Vs. M/s. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAJFN0187A Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.188/Del/2025 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

Manglayatan Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly

ITA 5527/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-04, A-86, Gali No. 9, New Delhi Chander Vihar, Mandawali, New Delhi (Pan: Aaicm3804H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prateek Mittal, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ay of such investment. The expression "Commercial Expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent business entity incurs for the purpose of business. It is noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT (288 ITR 1) by holding that the correct approach to the issue of grant of deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) would be to examine whether the amount advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party was advanced as a measure of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits. It was held that if…

Abhishek Mehta, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 898/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.897 & 898/Chny/2025 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…erest rate in a business transaction unless there is evidence of an arrangement designed to evade taxes. 5. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen that it is a settled law as held by the Hon&#x27;ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Ltd. V. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) held that the concept of commercial expediency must be seen from the perspective of the businessman and not the tax authorities and that If the loan were taken for business purposes, the interest expense must be allowed. 6. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen that once a loan transaction is found to be genuine and used for…

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

…25,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15) are concerned, we find that the assessee has not discharged the initial onus cast upon it to establish the business nexus of such advances. It is trite law, as held by the Hon&#x27;ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), that interest on borrowed capital is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the funds have been advanced to a sister concern or a third party as a measure of commercial expediency. The expression &quot;commercial expediency&quot; has been judicially interpreted to encompass such advances as are motivated by consi…

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

…25,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15) are concerned, we find that the assessee has not discharged the initial onus cast upon it to establish the business nexus of such advances. It is trite law, as held by the Hon&#x27;ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), that interest on borrowed capital is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the funds have been advanced to a sister concern or a third party as a measure of commercial expediency. The expression &quot;commercial expediency&quot; has been judicially interpreted to encompass such advances as are motivated by consi…

Arihant Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 590/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…so help each other with short term advances as and when required and it is well settled that when advances are made for commercial expediency, interest expenditure needs to be allowed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT(A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT Vs. Jugal Kishore Dangayach [2014] 49 taxmann.com 486 (Raj.). These facts are not disputed by the Revenue. Hence, we hold that no disallowance of interest is called for. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19.08.2025. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon&#x27;ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC)and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2025 9 business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon&#x27;ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC)and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2025 9 business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3083/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon&#x27;ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC)and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable and how the I.T.A. No. 3083/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2025 9 business should be carried out. Commercial expediency has to…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ports Private Limited, Mumbai of mixed funds. The AO noted that the theory of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on proportionate basis itself is based on concept of mix funds. Hon&#x27;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&quot; was used. Accordingly, he disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 9. In the subsequent appeal by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) after taking note of the reasons stated by the AO before making the impugned disallowance and also the written submissions made in this regard by the assessee, observed that…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ports Private Limited, Mumbai of mixed funds. The AO noted that the theory of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on proportionate basis itself is based on concept of mix funds. Hon&#x27;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&quot; was used. Accordingly, he disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 9. In the subsequent appeal by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) after taking note of the reasons stated by the AO before making the impugned disallowance and also the written submissions made in this regard by the assessee, observed that…

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ports Private Limited, Mumbai of mixed funds. The AO noted that the theory of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on proportionate basis itself is based on concept of mix funds. Hon&#x27;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&quot; was used. Accordingly, he disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 9. In the subsequent appeal by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) after taking note of the reasons stated by the AO before making the impugned disallowance and also the written submissions made in this regard by the assessee, observed that…

M/S. Lookline Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 461/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer-6(2), Ward 6(2), M/S Lookline Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 14-C, M.D. Road, 4 Th Floor, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700007 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccl2244C

For Appellant: Shri Monaj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…ies have no role to play in the running of the business of the assessee. The ld. AO cannot be allowed to step into the shoe of the businessman. The case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon&#x27;ble Apex Court in case of S.A Builders v. CIT (Appeals), [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the order of CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. 014. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 30.07.2025 Sudip Sarkar,…