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 367,244 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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 189/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 188/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…

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/VIZ/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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…

M/S. Eaton Power Quality Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…thorized" 4.12 Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case laws wherein the Courts !Tribunals have consistently have consistently held that the Revenue cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee:  SA Builders Ltd vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Walchand & Co Ltd [1967]65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs B. Dalmia Cement Ltd [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del)  CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC)  CIT vs Oracle India (P) Ltd [2011] 199 TAXMAN 181 (Delhi)  Hive Communication Private Ltd vs CIT [2013]353 ITR 200 (Del) 4.13 It may also be pointed out that recently the CBDT…

M/S Eaton Power Quality P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…thorized" 4.12 Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case laws wherein the Courts !Tribunals have consistently have consistently held that the Revenue cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee:  SA Builders Ltd vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Walchand & Co Ltd [1967]65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs B. Dalmia Cement Ltd [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del)  CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC)  CIT vs Oracle India (P) Ltd [2011] 199 TAXMAN 181 (Delhi)  Hive Communication Private Ltd vs CIT [2013]353 ITR 200 (Del) 4.13 It may also be pointed out that recently the CBDT…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…butable to the interest free loans advanced by the assessee to the sister concerns of the assessee. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)]. It was a further submission that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd., was now under review. It was a submission that the balance sheet and ledger A/cs, which had been produced first time before the Ld.CIT(A), was not confronted to the ld. Assessing Officer and consequently, there was violation of ITA Nos.2797 to 2…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2798/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…butable to the interest free loans advanced by the assessee to the sister concerns of the assessee. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)]. It was a further submission that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd., was now under review. It was a submission that the balance sheet and ledger A/cs, which had been produced first time before the Ld.CIT(A), was not confronted to the ld. Assessing Officer and consequently, there was violation of ITA Nos.2797 to 2…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2797/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…butable to the interest free loans advanced by the assessee to the sister concerns of the assessee. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., Vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)]. It was a further submission that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd., was now under review. It was a submission that the balance sheet and ledger A/cs, which had been produced first time before the Ld.CIT(A), was not confronted to the ld. Assessing Officer and consequently, there was violation of ITA Nos.2797 to 2…

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

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 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 144C(5)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) 15 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 •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…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 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 144C(5)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) 15 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 •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…

Impact Metalas Limited, Medak Dist., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 338/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 24Section 68

…ITA No 338 of 2016 Impact Metals Ltd Medak. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member M/s. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) PAN: AAACI4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 03.09.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2007-08 against the order of the CIT (A)-9, Hyderabad, dated 29th January,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4769/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 14A

…to the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. M/s. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. vide order dated 30th April, 2012 has held that the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 needs reconsideration. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 324 ITR 396 (Del.) he submitted that the onus is on the assessee to establish the commercial expediency. He submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) in para 4.4 of his order has shifted this onus to the Assessi…

The Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Arun Trade Combines, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the

ITA 119/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit- 1(1), M/S. Arun Trade Combines, Raipur (Cg). 101, Deopuri, Mana Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anubhaa Goyal, DR
Section 133(6)

…time to produce the same and due to death of father of assessee’s counsel the same could not be 17 C.O. No.03/RPR/2014 produced. The assessee contended that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), even when the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligations still it is allowable as business expenditure on the ground of commercial expediency. The assessee contended that all the payments were made through cheques issued in favour of the insurance company and genuineness of the claim cannot be disputed. It was also co…

Lars Medicare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10Section 115J

…the assessee has to necessarily expenditure and entertain it business associates and, hence expenditure so incurred is eligible business expenditure. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 254 ITR 377 (Del) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement ii) 288 ITR 1 (SC) S.A. Builiders Ltd. vs. CIT “31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) 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 its…

Mseb Holding Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 853/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 853/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 852/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Mseb Holding Company Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 10(1), Hongkong Bank Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Pin- Mumbai-400 020 400 001 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaecm2934Q अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Shri Niraj Sheth, Ars’ प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30-07-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…efore the ITAT pointed out that it is not entitled to the deduction of the interest expenditure on such loan liability even if otherwise allowable by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v/s. CIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 1(SC). 11. The second aspect of levy of penalty is regarding repair and maintenance expenses claimed by assessee of ₹ 12,90,040/-, the learned Counsel for the assessee before us, stated that the assessee earned rental income from letting out of its premise to its three subsidiary companies i.e. MSETCL, MSPGCL and MSGEDCL. The assessee offered this r…

Mseb Holding Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 852/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 853/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 852/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Mseb Holding Company Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 10(1), Hongkong Bank Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Pin- Mumbai-400 020 400 001 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaecm2934Q अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Shri Niraj Sheth, Ars’ प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30-07-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…efore the ITAT pointed out that it is not entitled to the deduction of the interest expenditure on such loan liability even if otherwise allowable by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v/s. CIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 1(SC). 11. The second aspect of levy of penalty is regarding repair and maintenance expenses claimed by assessee of ₹ 12,90,040/-, the learned Counsel for the assessee before us, stated that the assessee earned rental income from letting out of its premise to its three subsidiary companies i.e. MSETCL, MSPGCL and MSGEDCL. The assessee offered this r…

Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6174/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharma Productions Acit-16(1), Private Limited, Room No.439, बनाम/ Unit No.201 & 202, 2Nd 4Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Supreme Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-40020 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacd3889K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rakesh Mohan Shri Ram Tiwari-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/06/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2018 2 M/S Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘एच’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Dharma Productions ACIT-16(1), Private Limited, Room No.439, बनाम/ Unit No.201 & 202, 2nd 4th Floor, Vs. Floor, Supreme Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-40020 17/18, shah Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACD3889K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assesse…

DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri: Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘D’, KOLKATA (Before Shri Aby. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) ITA No. 649/Kol/2017 : A.Y : 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Circle-22, Kolkata Vs Dilip Chand Kankaria PAN: AJXPK5793Q (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) C.O No. 51/Kol/2017 [A/O ITA No. 649/Kol/2017 : A.Y : 2011-12] Dilip Chand Kankaria Vs D.C.I.T, Circle-22, Kolkata PAN: AJXPK5793Q (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Department by: Shri: Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Assessee by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 23-05-2018 Date of Pronouncement :- 25-07-2018 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.:…

ITO, Karauli vs. Manneta Garg, Karauli

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed while cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 875/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Maneeta Garg, Vs. Ward Karauli. Prop. MN/s. Shreeji Telelink, E-54,Mohan Nagar, Hindaun City, Karauli. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AOYPG 7819 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent Cross Objection No. 41/JP/2016 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 875/JP/2016) fu/kZkj.k…

Shriram Investments, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 995/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.995/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Shriram Investments, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Non Corporate Circle 2, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaafs 2590M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Gopinath, IRS, JCIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…was disallowed u/s.36(1) (iii) of the Act. Assessment was completed accordingly. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs, CIT, 288 ITR 1, assessee submitted that advances given to various persons were all in the business interest of the assessee. As per the assessee, it was following cash system and therefore there was no question of applying any matching principle. Assessee also stated that advances given by it, to the executives of Shriram group of concerns and members of Shrira…