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 367,154 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

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [PAN:AAFCD8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Re…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…t and not anyone else's The High Court cannot substitute its best judgment for that of the assessing authority." It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC)/[2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 585 (SC)[14-12-2006] that it is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain degree of guess work and it is the assessee himself who is to blame as he did not submit proper accounts. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Tara Singh V ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 293 (Punjab & Haryana) h…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…that the term “business expediency” is of wide connotation and can be best defined as action that a prudent businessman would take in the given circumstances. This contention of the appellant is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC) Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair 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. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) What is an outgoing of capital and what is an outgoing on acco…

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1930/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

…material to establish that the same was not for commercial reasons. It is settled law that any expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, even if indirectly, qualifies as commercial expediency, as held in: • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) "Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purpose of the business, revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors..." Thus, the advances were clearly for business considerations and cannot be treated as gratuitous or personal in natur…

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1788/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

…material to establish that the same was not for commercial reasons. It is settled law that any expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, even if indirectly, qualifies as commercial expediency, as held in: • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) "Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purpose of the business, revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors..." Thus, the advances were clearly for business considerations and cannot be treated as gratuitous or personal in natur…

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…nts are already furnished to Ld. AO which gives the proof of incurrence of expense. 1.4. It is a settled legal principle that the revenue cannot sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of the assessee. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) held that the Revenue cannot question the 16 Devika Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO necessity or expediency of a business decision, provided the expenditure is incurred for business purposes and is not found to be bogus or fictitious. “We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 37…

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…AO and Addl./JCIT(A). He submitted that the impugned issue may be set aside to the file of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)/AO for re-examination in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals) reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1, dated 14.12.2006. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material available on record and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee as well as various judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. AR and Ld. DR. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Ld. AO disallowed the penal interest of Rs.5,54,598/- u/s 3…

Gayatri Energy Ventures Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…ts, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction Under Section 36(1) (ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expendi…

Altfort Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 250

…of notional interest income by assuming the rate of 12% by the Ld. AO, it was mentioned that the Ld. AO has whimsically forced the assessee to earn income when nothing like that had actually happened. The Ld. AR relied on the case of S.A. Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) to canvass the point 3 Altfort Merchants Pvt. Ltd. that the AO could not sit in the shoes of the businessman when it came to passing judgments on commercial decisions. Regarding the addition on account of section 14A of the Act, it was argued that the assessee had not earned any exempt income and hence there was no question of any disallowan…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 51 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbitr…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pgf Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2137/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd Central Circle - 4 [Formerly M/s Pearls Green New Delhi Forest [Ltd], New Delhi SCO, 1042-43, Sector -22C Chandigarh PAN: AABCP 2805 N (Appellant) Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Som…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pgf Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2136/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd Central Circle - 4 [Formerly M/s Pearls Green New Delhi Forest [Ltd], New Delhi SCO, 1042-43, Sector -22C Chandigarh PAN: AABCP 2805 N (Appellant) Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Som…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pgf Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2135/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd Central Circle - 4 [Formerly M/s Pearls Green New Delhi Forest [Ltd], New Delhi SCO, 1042-43, Sector -22C Chandigarh PAN: AABCP 2805 N (Appellant) Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Som…

Ntt India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2491/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271ASection 92C

…aken to meet the competition prevalent in the market and to stave off the competitors. This is the domain of the businessman and the Transfer Pricing Officer has no say in the matter. As held by the Supreme Court in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007] 289 ITR 26 (SC) the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to place itself in the arm chair of businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is the reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 22. Even rule TOB(T)a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…, the action of the AG is completely unjustified. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions for the proposition that the AO could not step into the shoes of the businessman to determine the reasonableness of the expenditure:  SA. Builders lid vs CTT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. CIT: 379 ITR 347 (SC)  CIT vs Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del HC) 6.2 To justify the payment of Rs.60 Crores to Lahiri during the relevant year, our attention was drawn to the fact that the said rights were Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd. subsequently sold for a sum of Rs.65 Crores in the FY 2004-05 to…