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.

How many judgments cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT?

1,484 judgments on BharatTax cite S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 148, Section 147.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1)

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 521/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 24Section 80C

…for commercial expediency from the amount borrowed from the bank. Therefore, the interest paid on such borrowing is allowable to the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) against the professional receipt in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builder 288 ITR 1. It may also be noted that the assessee was required to provide interest free fund to M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Shri Dinesh Mangal Vs. DCIT for acquisition of machine as a part of his appointment with Searoc Cancer Center (Unit of M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd.) copy of appointment letter is enclosed.” 5. The ld. DR is heard…

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 520/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 24Section 80C

…for commercial expediency from the amount borrowed from the bank. Therefore, the interest paid on such borrowing is allowable to the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) against the professional receipt in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builder 288 ITR 1. It may also be noted that the assessee was required to provide interest free fund to M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Shri Dinesh Mangal Vs. DCIT for acquisition of machine as a part of his appointment with Searoc Cancer Center (Unit of M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd.) copy of appointment letter is enclosed.” 5. The ld. DR is heard…

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 519/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 24Section 80C

…for commercial expediency from the amount borrowed from the bank. Therefore, the interest paid on such borrowing is allowable to the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) against the professional receipt in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builder 288 ITR 1. It may also be noted that the assessee was required to provide interest free fund to M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Shri Dinesh Mangal Vs. DCIT for acquisition of machine as a part of his appointment with Searoc Cancer Center (Unit of M/s Imaging Super Consultant Pvt. Ltd.) copy of appointment letter is enclosed.” 5. The ld. DR is heard…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(10, Chennai vs. C.Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), The Acit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Street, R.A. Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The ACIT, M/s. C. Subba Reddy (HUF), Sukriti No, 19/1, III Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly known as Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai PAN: AACHC2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018…

M/S C Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1079/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Acit, M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs M/S. C. Subba Reddy (Huf), The Acit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Sukriti No, 19/1, Iii Cross Formerly Known As Business Circle-1, Street, R.A. Puram, Chennai Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aachc2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1079/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The ACIT, M/s. C. Subba Reddy (HUF), Sukriti No, 19/1, III Cross Street, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) R.A. Puram, Formerly known as Business Circle-1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai PAN: AACHC2523G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1464/Chny/2018…

Spicer India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spicer India Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2948/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2948/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Spicer India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Spicer India Ltd.) 29 Milestone, Pune-Nashik Highway, Village : Kuruli, Tal : Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist : Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aaecs1869C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 10, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…ssing Officer cannot sit in judgment of businessman position in incurring any expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) have applied the ratio laid down by the Apex court in S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and upheld the scope of commercial expediency, wherein it was held that The expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business ex…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Swadeshi Internationals

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/244/2010HC Karnataka11 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40A(2)(b)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.244 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MANGALURU. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-10(1), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SWADESHI INTERNATIONALS NO.731, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, HOSUR MAIN ROAD. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ith reference to its specific provisions and the Income-tax Authority is estopped from stepping into the shoes of any assessee so as to question its rationality, prudence or acceptability from a common sense point of view [see S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (S.C); CIT Vs. Dhanraj Girji Raja Narasingherji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC); CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)]. So long as the transaction meets the specific conditions laid down in the Act, an attempt to negate it or interpret it by applying the yardsticks of rationality, prudence etc., which in any case is highly subjective, would not m…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ith reference to its specific provisions and the Income-tax Authority is estopped from stepping into the shoes of any assessee so as to question its rationality, prudence or acceptability from a common sense point of view [see S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (S.C); CIT Vs. Dhanraj Girji Raja Narasingherji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC); CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)]. So long as the transaction meets the specific conditions laid down in the Act, an attempt to negate it or interpret it by applying the yardsticks of rationality, prudence etc., which in any case is highly subjective, would not m…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned ord…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…be for the assessed to show and prove that a transaction separately benchmarked, included consideration for the lower interest rate being paid. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1, wherein it is held that where it is obvious that the holding company has deep interest in its subsidiary and the subsidiary has used the funds borrowed for its business, the loan can ordinarily be considered as given to subsidiary as a measure of commercial expediency and accordingly the interest expense on the funds lent should be allowed as a de…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…be for the assessed to show and prove that a transaction separately benchmarked, included consideration for the lower interest rate being paid. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1, wherein it is held that where it is obvious that the holding company has deep interest in its subsidiary and the subsidiary has used the funds borrowed for its business, the loan can ordinarily be considered as given to subsidiary as a measure of commercial expediency and accordingly the interest expense on the funds lent should be allowed as a de…

Ashapura Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nder the circumstances, the sole question of law in Tax Appeal Nos.963/2008 & 964/2008 are held against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Further that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of S. A. Builders Vs. CIT (SC) (2007) 288 ITR 1 dealing with the identical issue decided that the advances to the sister concern of the assessee if paid from non interest funds available with the assessee no disallowance of interest is warranted. The judgment was passed on the premise that the amount advanced to the associated company invariably was used for the business exigencies and both the…

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

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

ITA 2255/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aezpm 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

…ould be no disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corpn vs CIT reported in 298 ITR 298 (SC) ; S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) ; Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (Cal) ; Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) ; Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 553 (Guj)…

Ebaotech India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result , appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 549/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Ebaotech India Pvt. Dcit 5(1) Ltd., R.No. 525, Housefin Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Sunteck Certainity M.K Road Suit No. 801, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai 400020 C-21, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabce7013R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Satish R. Mody Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 549/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 20.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.549/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92

…ation for making disallowance of salary on ad-hoc basis based on certain percentage of salary without pointed out any defects in books of accounts. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. v. CIT , (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) and further reliance is placed on page no. 28 to 29 of the paper book wherein complete details of employees and the salary expenses of these employees were furnished before the authorities below , are placed. It was submitted that the AO has disallowed 20% ( although stated to be 25% in AO order which learned CIT(A) has clarified) of salary exp…

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

What is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Shri Dinesh Mangal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(10, Chennai vs. C.Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai

M/S C Subba Reddy (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

Spicer India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spicer India Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Swadeshi Internationals

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Ashapura Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

Ebaotech India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai