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 367,295 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

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 5288/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 14A

…llowing its earlier order in assessee’s own case for AY 1993-94 to 1999-2000, has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 6 ITA 5288/Mum/20111 case of S.A. Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, fairly accepted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT for earlier years and for similar reasons, the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO, for this year also. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue of disallowance…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ove business exigency for making the advances, and therefore, as per the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd., reported in 286 ITR 1 and of the Apex court in the case of S.A. Builders, 3 A.Y. 2014-15 reported in 288 ITR 1, the disallowance of interest was warranted . 4. During appellate proceedings the assessee contended that it had sufficient own funds for making the investment and, therefore, no disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act warranted. Reliance was placed on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this regard and also on deci…

Madhulata Kankani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 772/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)

….772/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Madhulata Kankani Vs. ITO Wd-12(1), Kol. Page 4 out their business activities. I quote hon'ble apex court’s decision in Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT Civil Appeal No.518 of 2008 decided on 05.11.2014 and S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) to conclude that the advance in question can be held to be involving commercial expediency in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned interest disallowance of ₹9,44,912/- in issue stands deleted therefore. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 05/10/2018 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolka…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Dlf Hotel Holding Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1012/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…cision of the Supreme Court ITA 1012/2018 Page 5 of 6 in S.A. 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 purp…

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1855/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 14A

…n though the assessee has made suo moto disallowance of such expenditure, the same needs to be allowed as business expenditure in the light of said decision. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) to support its argument. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has made suo moto disallowance in respect of legal and professional fees incurred for the arbitration matter in respect of Idea Cellular Ltd in the statement of total income on the ground that the said expenditure has no n…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 612/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 14A

…n though the assessee has made suo moto disallowance of such expenditure, the same needs to be allowed as business expenditure in the light of said decision. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) to support its argument. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has made suo moto disallowance in respect of legal and professional fees incurred for the arbitration matter in respect of Idea Cellular Ltd in the statement of total income on the ground that the said expenditure has no n…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Dlf Hotel Holding Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-1012/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018
Section 36(1)(iii)

…reme Court 2018:DHC:6313-DB ITA 1012/2018 Page 5 of 6 in S.A. 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 purp…

M/S. Chemical Sales and Services, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4146/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr DR
Section 36

…e incurred and once the said condition is fulfilled no further factor can be brought in to deny the legitimate claim of deduction. In this behalf, I draw support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 wherein it has been held as under: "We wish to make it clear that it is not our opinion that in every case interest on borrowed loan has to be allowed if the assessee advances it to a sister concern. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the respective case. For instance, if the directors of the sister concern utilize the amount advance…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…nment Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David & Co. P Ltd Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) 86-94 16 S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 95-100 20 CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan Vs CIT 155 ITR 609 (Raj) 201-206 32 DN Sinha Vs. CIT 102 ITR 491 (Cal) 207-211 45 Asis Power Projects Vs. DCIT 370 ITR 256 (Kar) 273-277 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON DIVERS…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…nment Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David & Co. P Ltd Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) 86-94 16 S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 95-100 20 CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan Vs CIT 155 ITR 609 (Raj) 201-206 32 DN Sinha Vs. CIT 102 ITR 491 (Cal) 207-211 45 Asis Power Projects Vs. DCIT 370 ITR 256 (Kar) 273-277 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON DIVERS…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (P&H), decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, r) As regards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.S. Builders (288 ITR 1(SC) relied upon by the assessee company, it is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT \/s. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (May 6th, 2012) have held as under:- "S. 36(1)(iii): S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) to be reconsidered The assessee borrowed funds and used it to subscribe to the Equity capital of Its subsidiary company. The subsidiary compa…

M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2716/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 3125/Del/2016 and 2716/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (P&H), decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, r) As regards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.S. Builders (288 ITR 1(SC) relied upon by the assessee company, it is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT \/s. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (May 6th, 2012) have held as under:- "S. 36(1)(iii): S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) to be reconsidered The assessee borrowed funds and used it to subscribe to the Equity capital of Its subsidiary company. The subsidiary compa…

The DCIT, -1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

ITA 89/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…estion of reasonableness of the expenditure, the test of commercial expediency would have to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the IT Department. Reliance is placed of following judgments:- i. S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) ii. C.I.T. vs Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. 881TR1 (SC) iii. C.I.T. vs PanipatWoollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 (SC) 15. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the findings of CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and records placed before us. Assessee claimed machine hire…

M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur vs. The ACIT Circle 1(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

ITA 1/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…estion of reasonableness of the expenditure, the test of commercial expediency would have to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the IT Department. Reliance is placed of following judgments:- i. S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) ii. C.I.T. vs Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. 881TR1 (SC) iii. C.I.T. vs PanipatWoollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 (SC) 15. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the findings of CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and records placed before us. Assessee claimed machine hire…

Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited, Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2009-10

Section 14ASection 43A

…9 ITJ 145 Trib Indore; D. Narendra Narang Vs Addl CIT (2011) 18 ITJ 383 (Indore Trib); and E. When interest is paid on borrowed capital to gain control on subsidiary, it is allowable u/s. 36(i)(iii) : ACIT Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd.338 ITR 482 & S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that the Revenue Authorities were justified in their actions because the income from these investments is in the shape of dividend, which is exempt u/s 10 of the I.T. Act. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the p…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…r otherwise of the commercial expediency is to be decided from the point of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output servi…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1885/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…r otherwise of the commercial expediency is to be decided from the point of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output servi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur vs. Sakunthala Madala, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 190/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 & 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2018 & 190/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively) The Acit, Circle-1(1) Smt.Sakunthala Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [Pan :Acvpm9450F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri M Madhusudan, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2018 12 .09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DRFor Respondent: Shri M Madhusudan, AR
Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.187/Viz/2018 and 188/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively) The ACIT, Circle-1(1) Sri Sudhakar Madala Guntur Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, Pasumalai Complex 5/1 Aundelpet, Guntur [PAN :ACVPM9449E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A…