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

Shriram Krishnaji Surve, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2115/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 36(1)(iii)

…and interest free funds are available, a presumption would arise that investments are made out of interest free funds. In support of his contentions the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions : i. S.A. Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 288 ITR 1 (SC); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom.). 4. On the other hand Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate that the possession of studio flat was handed over to the assessee during the pe…

Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

ITA 7288/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Shri Govind Javeri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7289/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2014-15) M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., DCIT Central Circle-4(1) 215 Atrium, 10th Floor, Air India Building, Near Marriot Courtyard Hotel, 19th Floor, Nariman Point, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai-21. Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACK2629J Appellant Respondent ITA No. 210/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) DCIT Central Circle-4(1) M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., 215 Atrium, 10th Floor, Air India Building, 19th Floor, Nariman Point, Near Marrio…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…sonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue”. 13.24. Further, reference is also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) , where in it was held as under: "....that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

…o. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Reebok India Company[2018] 259 Taxman 100 (Delhi) & Honorable supreme court in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs. CIT[2015] 379 ITR 347 (SC) , CIT Vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC). He further submitted that in any case, assessee has substantial amount of own funds in form of share capital and reserves out of which these advances were paid. This is corroborated from balance sheet as well as statement of cash credit account. It may be submitted that even CIT (A) has accepted fact that funds have been given out of cash cre…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1177/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-Circle -13(1)(1) M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, बनाम/ 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Union Park, Khar (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 052. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-5346-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1178/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit-Circle -13(1)(1) M/S. Olive Café South Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, बनाम/ 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Union Park, Khar (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 052. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-1454-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.660/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd Dcit-Circle -13(1)(1) 14Th Pali Hill, Tourist Hotel बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Room No.218, Union Park, Khar (W) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-5346-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Abhi Rama Karthikeyan- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Mahesh Rajora - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mahesh Rajora - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Karthikeyan- Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…her plea raised was the fact that the loans were given to an associate for the purpose of carrying on its business activity and therefore, the disallowance was not warranted in terms of ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in S.A.Builders Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1]. However, not convinced with assessee’s explanations / submissions, the interest expenditure of Rs.28.09 Lacs as claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) was disallowed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested both the issues with partial success before Ld. first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 30/11/2017. The first appellate authority, a…

Gvk Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 5

…M/s GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., Kadiyam 3. According to the Tribunal, advancing of such monies to the subsidiaries was driven by commercial expediency. In support of this view the Tribunal relied upon the following judgments : (1) SA Builders v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) (2) CIT V. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. : 254 ITR 37 (Del.) (3) CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd. : 331 ITR 502 (Del.) 4. Under section 36(1)(iii) the following conditions are required to be satisfied before the assessee can successfully claim deduction in respect of interest paid : (a) The assessee should have borrowed capital; (b) The borrowing of t…

Smt. Jagjit Kaur Chawla, Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36

…v. Bright Enterprises P Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 107 P&H High Court. v. CIT vs. Rakesh Gupta, ITA No.37 of 2014 P&H High Court. vi. Aarti Steel Ld. Vs ACIT dtd. 771/2011, Chandigarh Tribunal. vii. Hero Cycles P Ltd. vs CIT, 379 ITR 347 SC ix. SA Builders vs CIT, 288 ITR 1 SC. 8 . T h e L d . D R , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e l i e d u p o n t h e o r d e r o f t h e C I T ( A ) . a n d d r e w o u r a t t e n t i o n t o h i s f i n d i n g s a t p a r a o f t h e o r d e r a s u n d e r : “4.3. I have given careful consideration to the facts of the present case and find that in the course of assessment pro…

Woodward India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 916/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Woodward India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, (Formerly Known As Woodward Circle-18(1), Governor India Ltd.,), 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Vs Building No. 5, Dlf Cyber Terraces, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon-122002 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Shri S.S. Tomer, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudary, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2019

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudary, C.I.T. DR
Section 92Section 92C

…iance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingir (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) • CIT vs. Walchand and Co (P) Ltd. (65 ITR 381)(SC) • CIT vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377)(Del) • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT and Anr. (289 ITR 26)(SC) • EKL Appliances Limited vs. CIT [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) 17 | P a g e 3.20 Lastly, the Ld AR drew our attention to the fact that similar royalty and technical payments have been accepted by the AO/TPO in subsequent years. In this regard, he relied on the below tabulation: AY TPO DRP Remarks 2010-11 Adjustments in respect of Adjustments i…

Dy CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Kotu Sarath Kumar`, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 496/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

…sing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision of the assessee, but not the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] held that the expression of ‘commercial expediency’ is an express of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2018 (KotuSarat Kumar &Ano.) Prasad Moo…

Kotu Anasuya (Late), Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 494/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

…sing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision of the assessee, but not the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] held that the expression of ‘commercial expediency’ is an express of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2018 (KotuSarat Kumar &Ano.) Prasad Moo…

Kotu Sarat Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Dy.CIT., Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 493/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriG.V.N. Hari–AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriD.K. Sonawal–Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153A

…sing Officer did not make out a case that the assessee has diverted the funds for non-business purpose. Business consideration is the decision of the assessee, but not the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] held that the expression of ‘commercial expediency’ is an express of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2018 (KotuSarat Kumar &Ano.) Prasad Moo…

Commissioner of Income Tax VIII vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA - 742 / 2009HC Delhi20 Mar 2019
Section 260

…g project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained i…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA - 548 / 2010HC Delhi20 Mar 2019
Section 260

…g project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained i…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA - 400 / 2009HC Delhi20 Mar 2019
Section 260

…g project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained i…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA - 581 / 2010HC Delhi20 Mar 2019
Section 260

…g project without acquiring 100 acres of contiguous land interest, free advances were given to the associate companies for the purposes of Assessee‟s business. 70. The Assessee‟s case appears to be supported by the decisions in SA Builders v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) which has been followed in Hero Cycles v. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom) was rightly relied upon by the ITAT to allow the plea of the Assessee and treat the said interest payments as revenue expenditure. As explained i…

Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the limited aspects of the ground No

ITA 1017/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Alok Industries Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Tower B, 2Nd Floor Income Tax, Peninsula Business Park Central Circle-6(2), G.K. Marg, Lower Parel Air India Building, Marine Mumbai – 400 013 Drive, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca0201C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…ociates and therefore, the purpose of business mentioned in Section 36(1)(iii) is duly satisfied by the assessee. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 6 M/s. Alok Industries 288 ITR 1. The assessee also pleaded that sufficient interest free funds were available with it to explain the interest free advances to subsidiary and sister concerns. The ld. AO did not heed to the contentions of the assessee and accordingly proceeded to disallow the proportionate interest to the expenditure of interest free advances and arrived at the dis…

Dlf Hotel Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1425/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dlf Hotel Holdings Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Tax, Circle-7(1), Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd5033D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…er of Income Tax (Appeals), which have been accepted by the Tribunal, the issue raised is covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in S.A. 5 DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. Builders Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Another,(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in Munjal Sales Corporation versus Commissioner of Income Tax,(2008) 298 ITR 298(SC). The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Limited(supra)held as follows:- “24. In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is “for the purpose of bus…

M/S. Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1065/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Circle-22(2), 507, G-5, Building, New Delhi Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent) Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 507, G-5, Building, Circle-22(2), Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143

…ble Delhi High Court in AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT.2012 TaxPub(DT) 1187 (Del-HC) :(2012) 341 ITR 0563. Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs CIT (1946) 14 TTR 647 (Bombay), Metplast Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563)(Delhi), S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 289 ITR 26 , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Walchand & Co. etc.. (1967) 65 ITR 381 In the case of the assessee itself, the Hon’ble ITAT had directed the AO to look into similar payment and the AO, during the A. Y. had found the payment commensurate to the market price and allowed the same in full.(Copy of the relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble '.TAT…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1318/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…d subsidiaries out of commercial expediency for the purpose of utilizing the same in the business of the subsidiaries is an allowable deduction in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. -vs.- ClT(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 appellant had sufficient own…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…d subsidiaries out of commercial expediency for the purpose of utilizing the same in the business of the subsidiaries is an allowable deduction in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. -vs.- ClT(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 appellant had sufficient own…