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 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

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 195/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee firm had extended credit to the partner of the assessee firm out of non- interest bearing funds / own funds and therefore the above decisions referred by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not applicable to the case of the assessee. He further argued stating that assessee’s fixed capital & reserves s…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 194/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee firm had extended credit to the partner of the assessee firm out of non- interest bearing funds / own funds and therefore the above decisions referred by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not applicable to the case of the assessee. He further argued stating that assessee’s fixed capital & reserves s…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 193/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee firm had extended credit to the partner of the assessee firm out of non- interest bearing funds / own funds and therefore the above decisions referred by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not applicable to the case of the assessee. He further argued stating that assessee’s fixed capital & reserves s…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 192/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee firm had extended credit to the partner of the assessee firm out of non- interest bearing funds / own funds and therefore the above decisions referred by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not applicable to the case of the assessee. He further argued stating that assessee’s fixed capital & reserves s…

Original Kerala Jewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 191/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 191 To 196/Mds/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.91, Sundaram Complex, Income Tax, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai -34. Pan:Aaafo0104F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit

For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…on the diverted fund for non-business purposes cannot be claimed as allowable deduction U/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act”. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the view of the Ld.AO further relying in the case SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT(A) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 288 ITR 1. 12.1 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee firm had extended credit to the partner of the assessee firm out of non- interest bearing funds / own funds and therefore the above decisions referred by the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not applicable to the case of the assessee. He further argued stating that assessee’s fixed capital & reserves s…

United Spirits Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

WP/57883/2017HC Karnataka09 Jan 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.57883/2017(T-It) Between United Spirits Ltd. Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560 001 Represented Herein By Its Senior General Manager-Taxation Mr.Pradeep Simha

Section 14ASection 36

…1/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.No.57883/2017(T-IT) BETWEEN UNITED SPIRITS LTD. UB TOWERS, NO.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER-TAXATION MR.PRADEEP SIMHA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI N.VENKATARAMAN, SR. ADV. FOR SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. TH…

Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1820/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…unds advanced to subsidiaries and free funds internally generated by assessee and hence impugned additions deserves to be deleted. Reliance has been placed upon following judicial pronouncements for various contentions:- i. S.A.Builders Vs. CIT [Supreme Court 288 ITR 1] ii. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [Supreme Court] [Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008] iii. CIT Vs Reliance Communication Infrastructure [207 Taxmann 219 Bombay High Court] iv. CIT Vs Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 Bombay High Court] v. CIT Vs Ashok Commercial Enterprises [Bombay High Court] [ITA-L No. 2985 of 2009)] vi. CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [Bombay H…

ACIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1774/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…unds advanced to subsidiaries and free funds internally generated by assessee and hence impugned additions deserves to be deleted. Reliance has been placed upon following judicial pronouncements for various contentions:- i. S.A.Builders Vs. CIT [Supreme Court 288 ITR 1] ii. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [Supreme Court] [Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008] iii. CIT Vs Reliance Communication Infrastructure [207 Taxmann 219 Bombay High Court] iv. CIT Vs Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 Bombay High Court] v. CIT Vs Ashok Commercial Enterprises [Bombay High Court] [ITA-L No. 2985 of 2009)] vi. CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd [Bombay H…

Ilink Multitech Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

ITA 1546/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1544, 1545 & 1546/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 37

…ne more ground with regard to bad debts written off to the extent of ₹47,64,549/-. 12. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of ₹47,64,549/- to its 8 I.T.A. Nos.1544 to 1546/Mds/17 v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, the Ld. representative submitted that the money was advanced to its subsidiary company and the same was used by the subsidiary company for its business, therefore, the same has to be considered as utilization of funds for assessee's own business. Since it cannot be recovered, it has to be allowed as bad debt. 13. On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sree…

Ilink Multitech Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

ITA 1545/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1544, 1545 & 1546/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 37

…ne more ground with regard to bad debts written off to the extent of ₹47,64,549/-. 12. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of ₹47,64,549/- to its 8 I.T.A. Nos.1544 to 1546/Mds/17 v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, the Ld. representative submitted that the money was advanced to its subsidiary company and the same was used by the subsidiary company for its business, therefore, the same has to be considered as utilization of funds for assessee's own business. Since it cannot be recovered, it has to be allowed as bad debt. 13. On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sree…

Ilink Multitech Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

ITA 1544/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1544, 1545 & 1546/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 37

…ne more ground with regard to bad debts written off to the extent of ₹47,64,549/-. 12. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of ₹47,64,549/- to its 8 I.T.A. Nos.1544 to 1546/Mds/17 v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, the Ld. representative submitted that the money was advanced to its subsidiary company and the same was used by the subsidiary company for its business, therefore, the same has to be considered as utilization of funds for assessee's own business. Since it cannot be recovered, it has to be allowed as bad debt. 13. On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sree…

Honeyvick Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1569/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 264Section 37(1)Section 63

…2007-08 whereas the assessee's investment dates back to F.Y., 2000. Rule 8D is prospective and has not been introduced with retrospective effect. 4. Lastly it has been argued that on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s S.A. Builders, 288 ITR 1, it has been held that any expenses incurred for the purpose on assessee's own business or the group A.Y. 2009-10 Page 4 of 4 company's business, is to be allowed as an expenditure against taxable income. 5. I have gone through the submissions and have examined the facts of the case in detail. The ruling of S.A. Builder’s case clearly applies her…

Advance Steel Tubes Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.412/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-24(4), Hooghly C/O R.B. Singh, Advocate, 11, D.C. Of I.T.Circle-3, P-7, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Room Chowringhee Square, 4Th No.2, Kolkata – 700 069. Floor, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aacca 6765 B (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Kolkata, In Appeal No.107/Cit(A)-1/C-3/2013-14 Dated 31.12.2014 Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 01.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1) For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Accepted The Contention Of The Assessee That Disallowance On Interest Payment Of Rs.22,80,000/- Which Was Covered U/S.40A(2)(A) Made By The Assessing Officer Was Illegal & He Acted Wrongly In Confirming The Disallowance On Alleged Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40A(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.412/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), Hooghly C/o R.B. Singh, Advocate, 11, D.C. Of I.T.Circle-3, P-7, Crooked Lane, 1st Floor, Room Chowringhee Square, 4th No.2, Kolkata – 700 069. Floor, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AACCA 6765 B (ASSESSEE) .. (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pr…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…3 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 65 ITR 381 - J K Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612(SC) - CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) Page 15 - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd.: 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) 15. Further reliance was placed on th…

Resource Realty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5782/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Resource Realty P. Ltd Dcit- Circle 8(3), 4Th Floor, Hdil Tower, बिधम/ R. No. 204, Aaykar Bhawan Anant Kanekar Marg, M.K Road, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbaii-400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaecr0433R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Virag Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh K. Rai, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

…rvations of the lower authorities that as the assessee had utilized the loan funds not for its own business, but for the business of his group company, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. A.R further to drive home his contention that the „Exchange fluctuation‟ loss of Rs. 3,40,001/- was rightly claimed by the assessee in its return of income, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India (Pvt) Ltd. (2009) 179 Taxman 326 (SC). Per contra, the ld. Departmental…

Ask Investment Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5547/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5547/M/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ask Investment Holdings P. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle 6(1)(2), Ltd.(Now Merged With ‘Ask Vs. Mumbai Investment Managers P. Ltd. 1St Floor, Band Box House, 254-D, Dr. Annie Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai Pin:400030 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca2302P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shreyam B. Shah & NFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

…ny, funds were advances to the subsidiary company and such interest is deductible advances are given for commercial expediency. In this regard. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 1). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the department has refuted the said contention. With due regards the contention raised the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record carefully, we noticed that the assessee advanced interest free loan to its subsidiary. |It is to be examined whether the said loan has been given…

I.T.O., Ward-35(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Kamal Kishore Toshniwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground no

ITA 1841/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri V. N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden,ACIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1841/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward – 35(3), Kolkata Vs. Shri Kamal Kishore Toshniwal 35(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, 35, Ezra Street, 4 t h Floor, Kolkata – Shantipally, 8th Floor, Kolkata – 700 107. 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : ABTPT 2712 Q (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee by :Shri V. N. Purohit, FCA Revenue/Department by :Shri Sallong Yaden,ACIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 01/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/1…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Rajshree Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1000/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S Rajshree Vanijya Pvt. I.T.O, Ward-2(1), Kolkata Ltd. 7, Ganesh Chandra Avenue,Kolkata-13 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 2400 B (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)–1, Kolkata, In Appeal No.92/Cit(A)-1/W-2(1)/2013-14, Dated 25.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 12.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Kolkata, Had Erred In Allowing Relief Against The Disallowance Interest On Borrowed Fund Of Rs.56,66,773/- Which Is Not Utilized For The Assessee’S Business Purpose. 2. That Tax Effect In The Instant Case Is Also Much Above The Monetary Limit As Prescribed Vide Cbdt’S Instruction No.3/2011 & Instruction No.5/2014 For Filing Of Appeal Before Ld. Itat, Kolkata. 3. That The Assessee Craves Leave To Amend, Modify Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Of This Case.” 4. The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That The Assessee Company Is A Trader Of Textile Machines, Scrap, Iron & Steel & Yarn. During The Financial Year 2009- 10, As Per The Profit &Loss A/C, The Assessee Made A Sale Of Rs.178,45,97,471/-

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…ding deployment of fund, the assessee stated that the assessee's own funds were utilized in providing interest free advance. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT(2011) 61 DTR 153. M/s Rajshree Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2010-11 However, the AO ignored the submissions of the assessee and stated that the quantum of interest paid on borrowed capital which was utilized in providing loan to M/s NLBD Marketing Pvt Ltd. and…

Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

ITA 1903/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Years M/s. Bharath Beedi The Joint Commissioner of Works Ltd., Income Tax (Asst.), Bharath Bagh, Kadri 1998-99 Special Range, Road, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 003. The Joint M/s. Bharath Beedi Works Ltd., Commissioner of Bharath Bagh, Kadri Road, 1998-99 Income Tax (Asst.), Mangalore – 575 003. Special Range, Mangalore. M/s. Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner of ITA No. 3442 & 2000-01 & Bharath Bagh,…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…R 846, 851, 852 (Gauh)]. - . Mere payment by A/c Payee Cheque is not sacrosanct it would not make otherwise non- genuine transaction genuine. CIT Vis. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). Even in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Vis JCIT upheld by SC 288 ITR 10 (SC), Hon'ble ITAT had held that even Account Payee Cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. In the case of CIT Vs Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del), it was held that since the assessee, despite several opportunities granted, did not produce the relevant documents, an adverse inference had to be drawn agai…