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 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 367,181 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 14A Section 1961 Section 148 Section 147 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediency interest free advances section 36(1)(iii)business expediency disallowance of interest expenditure section 36(1)section 36 revenue expenditure section 37(1)section 37 capital expenditure section 14a

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sumeet Bawa, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 728/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2009-10] The D.C.I.T Vs. Shri Sumeet Bawa Circle – 3(1) 494, Vill. Sultanpur New Delhi Sultanpur, Ghitorni Delhi Pan : Aaepb 2767 P [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushalendra Tiwari, CIT- DR

…Rs. 33,48,531/-. 6. The assessee assailed the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the contentions. 7. After considering the submissions and facts and after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. It is the say of the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has clearly established the nexus between the borrowed funds and advancement of interest free loans. 10…

Mainetti India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3433/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 15.03.2018

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…both the assessment years. 4.2 Before us the Ld.AR reiterated his submissions made before the Ld.Revenue Authorities on the earlier instances and also relied in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case SA Builders Ltd., vs. CIT and Anr reported in 288 ITR 1 and pleaded for deleting the disallowance with respect to the expenditure incurred towards nomination fee for both the assessment years. The Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. The following fact emerges from th…

Mainetti India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3432/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 15.03.2018

Section 143(3)Section 234B

Hinduja Group India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 4458/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2466/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year :2008-09) M/s. Hinduja Group India Ltd., Vs. ACIT – RG 6(3) (Now known as Aasia Advisory Aayakar Bhavan Services Ltd.) M.K.Road Hinduja House, Dr. A.B. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 PAN/GIR No.AAACH2457B Appellant .. Respondent ITO – 7(1)(3), Vs. M/s. Hinduja Group India Ltd. Mumbai Hinduja House, Dr. A.B.Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 PAN/GIR No.AAACH2457B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by Shri J.P.Bairgra / Shri S.K.Mutsaddi…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…of interest. On the facts Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., AY 2009-10 available in the assessment records I hold that the assessee's claim for interest paid on borrowed capital was supported by the decision of the apex Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. (288 ITR 1) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (330 ITR 595). I, therefore, do not find merit in the disallowance made out of interest paid and accordingly the AO is directed to delete interest disallowance of Rs.81,15,597/-. Ground nos. 5 and 6 are accordingly allowed.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid action…

Anjani Portland Cement Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1493/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann

Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

…company and not assessee company. 9.1 It was further submitted that assessee as a holding company made payment for business purpose and whether is the purpose of holding or subsidiary company would not be relevant as held in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 and further relied on other case law. It was also subumitted that in support of filing of additional grounds, which arise directly out of the facts and evidence on record does not require any investigation into the facts and therefore qualify for adjudication. 9.2 Alternatively, it was also submitted that the above payment should be treated as cap…

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Anjani Portland Cement Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1305/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann

Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5946/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5946/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri PRV RaghvanFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…free advances to the tune of Rs. 79 lacs as well making investments in these subsidiary companies to the tune of Rs.650.19 lacs to acquire their controlling interest. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Bulders v. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC). But the AO was of the view that there is diversion of interest bearing funds for making interest free advances/investments in subsidiaries companies and the assessee could not prove commercial nexus or commercial expediency in advancing aforesaid interest free advances/making investments in the subsidiary companies. Since, there were interest…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Sri Jayajothi Textile Mills Private Limited, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 1896/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA

…er concern was a subsidiary and under the control of the assessee company and consequently, the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.SA Builders Ltd., reported in 288 ITR 1. The Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that the Ld.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact of the commercial expediency in respect of providing interest free loans by the assessee to its sister concern. In fact, a perus…

Bs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2186/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Deepak P. Ripote

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s BS Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, PAN – AAACB 3170 F Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by : Shri Deepak P. Ripote Date of hearing 03-04-2018 Date of pronouncement 27-04-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A & 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act…

Fine Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-4

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

ITA 2866/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Mohan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ntities out of commercial expediency and strategic consideration and therefore no disallowance on account of interest paid by the assessee is attracted. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.A. Builders vs. CIT” (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). However, the reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and the AO, ultimately by giving a detailed justification as incorporated in para 7.1 of the assessments order, disallowed Rs.1,37,64,648/- under section 36(1)(iii) as interest expenditure not incurred for the purpose of business. 14. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 131

…and cannot be said to be any enduring nature so as to say that the expenditure in question was capital expenditure. 32. The learned counsel for the Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of disallowance of interest paid on loans borrowed which were given to the sister concern without charging interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company (which i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Too Highway Ltd., Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 228/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 227 & 228/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & & 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highway Limited, Income-Tax (Central)-I, 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Indore. Indore.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ch interest bearing -: 13 :- M/s.Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (I)Ltd. funds to non-business purposes, disallowance in warranted u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.A.Builder Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 8 ITJ 101(SC) : (2007) 288 ITR 1 have observed that before disallowing interest, AO is required to see business expediency. As assessee has advance to its sister concern as per the business requirements, the matter is restored back to the AO keeping in view the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in case of S.A. Builder Ltd. Vs CIT”. g. There is no doubt that SPV was…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Too Highway Ltd., Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 227/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Mukta Arts Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1658/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. Cit 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road V. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. T A Khan

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. CIT 11(1) 3rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road v. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACM9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri. Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Shri. T A Khan सुनवाई की तारी…

Kusegoan Relaty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 15& 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalkusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg ……………. Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aadck0621P V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai V/S Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Respondent D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aadck0621P Assessee By : Shri C.M. Shah A/W Shri Ajay Wadhwa Revenue By : Shri H.N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh

Section 132(1)Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg ……………. Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 PAN – AADCK0621P v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai v/s Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Respondent D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 PAN – A…

DCIT CIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6659/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6659/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited Circle-7(2)(1) (The Merged Entity Of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd) 74,Ganesh Apartment Room No.338,3Rd Floor बनाम/ Opp.Sitladevi Temple Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Vs. Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacm-4998-G/Aabcm-6632-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.96/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (The Merged Entity Of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd) Income Tax Range-6(3) बनाम/ Mahindra Towers,1St Floor Room No.573,5Th Floor Vs. Dr.G.M.Bhosale Marg, Worli Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcm-6632-J/Aaacm-4998-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: H.P.Mahajani & Prasad Bapat,Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No.6659/Mum/2014 &Co.No.96/Mum/2016 Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd Assessment Year 2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “आई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6659/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Mahindra CIE Automotive Limited Circle-7(2)(1) (The merged entity of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd) 74,Ganesh Apartment Room No.338,3rd Floor बनाम/ Opp.Sitladevi Temple Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Roa…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Incite Homecare Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal

Section 36Section 43(1)Section 69

…sidered in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles, it is noted that the Court after referring to the position of law as stood recapitulated on commercial expediency in the case of S.A. Builders Vs CIT & another (2007) 288 ITR 1 (S.C) the legal position was summed up by the Court noting 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 Court held that the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a bus…

Kothari Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 153A

…ompany has all the right to sell its goods at a price, mutually negotiated, found prudent as a businessman provided there is no allegation of any receipt over and above the declared consideration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)(Case Law Page 21) held that “…the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The income tax…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6055/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…ing regard to the direct or indirect commercial interest of the Company, corporate guarantee is given with a view to safeguard and to further business interest. Hence, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74, wherein it has been held 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 and…