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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…ion is that the assessee has invested the available interest-free funds in share capital and mutual funds. Furthermore, making investment in sister concerns is for commercial expediency in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. It is not the case of the Revenue that the sister concern or any of the Directors has misused the funds invested by the assessee. When the sister concern uses the funds only for business purpose, there was commercial expediency for making investment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance under…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…ion is that the assessee has invested the available interest-free funds in share capital and mutual funds. Furthermore, making investment in sister concerns is for commercial expediency in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. It is not the case of the Revenue that the sister concern or any of the Directors has misused the funds invested by the assessee. When the sister concern uses the funds only for business purpose, there was commercial expediency for making investment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance under…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…d & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). 2. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 3. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). 6. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 25 4. Further, the AO has invoked Section 40A(2) for the sales made to sister concern. Section 40A(2) does not involve sale/revenue, but it is for expenses incurred. Moreover, the cost paid by the sister concern has been accepted in the assessment proceedings of that concern. 5. Further the losse…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…d & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). 2. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 3. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). 6. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 25 4. Further, the AO has invoked Section 40A(2) for the sales made to sister concern. Section 40A(2) does not involve sale/revenue, but it is for expenses incurred. Moreover, the cost paid by the sister concern has been accepted in the assessment proceedings of that concern. 5. Further the losse…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Hermes I Tickets Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2587/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2587/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Hermes I Tickets Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. C-9, Thiru-Vika-Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 2(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabch 7295 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 36(1)(iii)

…claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing the claim of the 3 I.T.A. No.2587/Mds/16 assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1). 4. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The CIT(Appeals) found that the advances were made for commercial expediency. Accordingly, he allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra). The Revenue now claims that there was…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…above test - - 8 ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee a…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…above test - - 8 ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee a…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…above test - - 8 ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee a…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…above test - - 8 ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 has been approved by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.5 In our opinion, the A.O should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the A.O should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company, or to a subsidiary of the assessee a…

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 450/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 92C

…ion is that the assessee has invested the available interest-free funds in share capital and mutual funds. Furthermore, making investment in sister concerns is for commercial expediency in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. It is not the case of the Revenue that the sister concern or any of the Directors has misused the funds invested by the assessee. When the sister concern uses the funds only for business purpose, there was commercial expediency for making investment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance under…

M/S. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3108/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3108/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5336/Mum/2008, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. Addl Cit,Range-3(2) (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.) Mumbai. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaci 0995 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3136/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit,Range-3(2) Vs. M/S.Icici Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.),Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia-Sr.Dr Assessee By: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari and Arju Goradia-Sr.DR
Section 254(1)Section 36

…et submitted by him to impress upon the point that own funds were far in excess of investment made in these securities. In addition to the above, Ld. Counsel also drew our attention upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and the AO. 15.4 We have heard both the sides. It is seen by us that facts in the preceding years are identical. In addition to the above, it is further observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd.,supra, had observed that even if expenditure may not hav…

ACIT, Kota vs. Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Baran

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 453/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ronouncement, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) 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”. It has been held in several judgments that 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 inc…

Sailent Business Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, reversing the order of the Ld

ITA 6297/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri N K Bansal
Section 143Section 143(3)

…nly two things i) the expenses should be genuine and ii) the expenses should have been incurred for the purpose of business and there is no scope of any reasonableness and un reasonableness. It is submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1(SC) has held that revenue authorities cannot comment on the reasonableness of an expenses, it is the assessee who has privilege to conduct his business and revenue authorities cannot sit in the arm chair of the assessee. 7. Audited Books:-The AO and the CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that the books of the assessee are audited and produced during…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2301/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Vs. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, K.G. Dcit, Circle -13(1), New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vs. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, K.G. Acit, Central Circle-18, New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-18, New K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017

Section 36(1)(iii)

…g from the date on which capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction.” 12. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals), (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) held that no interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan to sister concern should be disallowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) if the loan given by the assessee was as a measure of commercial expediency. 13. In the instant case, a copy of the submissions filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, hav…

ACIT CC-18 vs. Nahar Theaters (P) Ltd

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1661/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Vs. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, K.G. Dcit, Circle -13(1), New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2003-04 Vs. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, K.G. Acit, Central Circle-18, New Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Nahar Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 9, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-18, New K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi. Pan : Aaacn0194R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017

Section 36(1)(iii)

…g from the date on which capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction.” 12. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(Appeals), (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) held that no interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan to sister concern should be disallowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) if the loan given by the assessee was as a measure of commercial expediency. 13. In the instant case, a copy of the submissions filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, hav…

Shri. Suresh Linganagouda Patil, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Jyoti Maradi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. P. Renugadevi, Jt.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

…r assessment years, payment of interest was disallowed only for the reason that it was diverted to the partnership firm, without assessing the business need of such investment in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders v. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC). During the impugned assessment year, the assessee has filed enormous evidence to explain the business need of the investment of borrowed fund in the partnership firm. Therefore, we are of the view that this issue requires a fresh look by the AO in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra). According…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asas Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4359/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…ia Cement (P.) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " DCIT, Central Circle-2 Vs A. K. Capital Services Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1143 & 1194/Del/2014 order dated 10.02.2016 (ITAT Del.) " Ravi Marketing (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal.) " S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT(A)(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR reiterated the observation made by the AO and strongly supported the assessment order dated 27.03.2015. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the turnover of the assessee increased…

Jaguar International Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4371/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Therefore, the prorata interest disallowed by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act was correct and the interest expenditure was also not allowable as per Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 7. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) " CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " Addl. CIT Vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. 338 ITR 482 (Del.) " CIT Vs J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 200 Taxman 101 (Del.) " Cornerstone Exports (P) Ltd. 67 Taxmann.com 345 (Guj.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the author…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 789/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…on grounds of commercial expediency and that the funds were advanced for utilization by the subsidiaries in their business of construction activity. The assessee company relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) to justify the advancing of loan to the subsidiaries and submitted that no part of interest be disallowed. The Assessing Officer noted that there was no material furnished by the assessee to show that as to whether the amounts advanced by the assessee were actually utilized by the subsidiaries in their businesses. The Assessing Officer also hel…

Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 1257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…on grounds of commercial expediency and that the funds were advanced for utilization by the subsidiaries in their business of construction activity. The assessee company relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) to justify the advancing of loan to the subsidiaries and submitted that no part of interest be disallowed. The Assessing Officer noted that there was no material furnished by the assessee to show that as to whether the amounts advanced by the assessee were actually utilized by the subsidiaries in their businesses. The Assessing Officer also hel…