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 367,182 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT · 288 ITR 1 · Section 36(1)(iii) · commercial expediency · business expediency · interest-free advances · disallowance of interest · onus to prove business purpose · borrowed funds · Revenue interference

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 74158 Taxmann.com 74

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14ASection 1961Section 148Section 147Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediencyinterest free advancessection 36(1)(iii)business expediencydisallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)section 36revenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37capital expendituresection 14a

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Utilities Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 3734/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Dlf Utilities Ltd. Circle-(7)1, Room No. 403, 10 E, Naaz Cinema C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension (Appellant) New Delhi Aaacn3199A (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…noted that apart from these advances, there were other advances also but on which interest has duly been charged by the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that an expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal objection but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. We note that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that the expression “commercial expediency” is an expression of wide impo…

M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 740/HYD/2012[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S Hyderabad Distilleries & Vs Acit Wineries Pvt. Ltd. A-4, Ida, Uppal Circle-2(2) Hyderabad-39 Hyderabad Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 5

…urpose of business which are as follows: • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 (SC) 9ITA No 740/Del/2012 • S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions in reference to reasonableness of expenditure to be seen from point of view of business: • CIT vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC) • J. K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC) • Aluminium Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC) The Ld. AR submitted that the tests that have evol…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…clusion, relied upon the decisions in the case of EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) and WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) and also considered the cases in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 3) and Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal). 2.3. (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free sec…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…clusion, relied upon the decisions in the case of EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) and WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) and also considered the cases in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 3) and Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal). 2.3. (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free sec…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…clusion, relied upon the decisions in the case of EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) and WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) and also considered the cases in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 3) and Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal). 2.3. (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free sec…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…clusion, relied upon the decisions in the case of EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) and WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) and also considered the cases in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 3) and Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal). 2.3. (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the finding of fact given by the Tribunal was that the assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free sec…

M/S. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Spl. RG. - 20, Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: MS Kadambari Dave, ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)

…unal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99, AY 2003-04 and the. Tribunal has restored this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication following the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.A.Builders, reported in 288 ITR 1(SC). Therefore, this being identical issue, the same view may be taken as taken earlier by this Tribunal. 9. The Id. DR did not object to the plea put forth by the Id.AR. 10. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in assessee's own cases in the assessment years…

JCIT (OSD), New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Utilities Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 2566/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadlf Utilities Ltd. Dcit 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Circle-7(1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Vs. Pan : Aaacn3199A (Appellant) (Respondent) Jcit (Osd) Dlf Utilities Ltd. Circle-7(1), 403, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, C.R.Building Sansad Marg Vs. I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…oted that apart from these advances, there were other advances also but on which interest has duly been charged by the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that an expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal objection but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. We note that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that the expression “commercial expediency” is an expression of wide…

Dlf Utilities Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 1998/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavadlf Utilities Ltd. Dcit 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Circle-7(1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Vs. Pan : Aaacn3199A (Appellant) (Respondent) Jcit (Osd) Dlf Utilities Ltd. Circle-7(1), 403, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, C.R.Building Sansad Marg Vs. I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…oted that apart from these advances, there were other advances also but on which interest has duly been charged by the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that an expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal objection but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency. We note that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that the expression “commercial expediency” is an expression of wide…

Allied Media Network P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3545/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Allied Media Network Pvt. Dcit, Range-7(1), Aayakar Ltd., P-2, Level 3, Percept Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. House, 22 Raghuvanshi Mumbai-400020 Estate, 11/12 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcp9975H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…) the judgment dated 18 August 2011 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. M/s Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (ITA No. 43 of 2009 and 505 and 562 of 2010) and subsequent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that the decision in SA Builders v. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 needs reconsideration, (ii) the order of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in Shree Saras Spices & Food P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 2527/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-08 and ITA No. 1220/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. In the assessmen…

The ACIT, (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Tanti Holding Pvt.Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2025/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 111Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2009-10 The ACIT(OSD), M/s. Tanti Holding Pvt. Circle-8, Ltd. “Suzlan”, 5, Ahmedabad Vs Shrimali Society, Nr. (Appellant) Shree Krishna Complex, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN: AACCS1420K (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 11-04-2018 Date of pronouncement : 25-06-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 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…

M/S. Decent Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1624/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishim/S. Decent Builders Pvt. Ito Ltd. Ward-7(1) 4, Pirthvi Raj Road Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd2460J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Decent Builders Pvt. ITO Ltd. Ward-7(1) 4, Pirthvi Raj Road Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACD2460J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. : Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of hearing : 26.03.2018 Date of pronouncement : 19.06.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 02/02/2016 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, New Delhi for the a…

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Chetan R Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5664/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…) allowed the same and hence the Revenue has filed this appeal before us. 3. The Learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd (288 ITR 1). The Learned DR submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has made clear in the said order that “business expediency” should be brought on record by the assessee before the tax authorities and then only, the interest expenditure could be allowed. The Learned DR submitted that the assessee did not bring on record any business expediency in advancing int…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…bleness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue”. 36 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 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6704/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit 9(3)(1) M/S. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt. 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Ltd. Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 6-Shiv Vastu, Tejpal Scheme Road No.5, Vile Parle (E),Mumbai - 400057 Pan:Aaacd7612A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2018 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Cit(A)-16, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Hydro Electric Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.09.2012, Declaring Total Income At Rs.2.57 Crore, Later On A Revised Return Was Filed On 19.08.2013 Declaring Income At Rs.1.96 Crores.On 25.09. 2013,The Assessee Revised The Return For The Second Time Disclosing Income Of Rs.3.57 Cores. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28.02.2015,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 5.53 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “डी डी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई डी डी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member & C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6704/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. CIT 9…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1629/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1629/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Cir-2(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)

…n by the assessee for commercial expediency and thatbeing so, it is obvious that the issue of the assessee under consideration is fully supported, based on the identical facts, by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. Assessment Year: 2010-11 “The High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the IT authorities have approached the matter from an erroneous angle. The assessee borrowed the fund from the bank and lent some of it to its sister-concern (a subsidiary)…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 1649/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hanshing, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) vide order dated 5.11.2015, it was held : 12. In so far as loans to the sister concern/subsidiary company are concerned, law in this behalf is recapitulated by this Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). After taking note of and discussing on the scope of commercial expediency, the Court summed up the legal position in the following manner:-- '26. 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 in…

Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 1622/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hanshing, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) vide order dated 5.11.2015, it was held : 12. In so far as loans to the sister concern/subsidiary company are concerned, law in this behalf is recapitulated by this Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). After taking note of and discussing on the scope of commercial expediency, the Court summed up the legal position in the following manner:-- '26. 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 in…

Ideal Toll & Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7758/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…arious loans and the same was brought into common bank account, i.e., in common hotchpotch. With regard to the claim of commercial considerations, the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) in order to contend that the amount advanced to sister concerns on commercial expediency will not debar from allowing interest expenditure claim. However the Ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not place its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.A Builders (supra), as it was rendered on the facts pr…