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

Jupiter Capial P. Ltd vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 253/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

…pellant and no disallowance was called for on the advances made to the said subsidiary. 22. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of supreme court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 23. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds on which the financial charges were incurred and interest free advances made to M/s.Azure Media Services (P) Ltd and under the circumstances. no disallowance could have been made. ITA Nos.60/Bang/2012, 2…

M/S Jupiter Capital (P) Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 60/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 282/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

Sigma Corporation India Ltd vs. DCIT

The appeal is allowed in

ITA/795/2016HC Delhi15 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ITA 795/2016 Page 1 of 8 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:15th February, 2017 + ITA 795/2016 & CM No.41578/2016 SIGMA CORPORATION INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla and Mr. Manu K. Giri, Advocates. Versus DCIT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT (Oral):- CM No.41578/2016 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken on…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 2.11 In the case of CIT vs Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. (2012) 207 taxman 219 (Bom.), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 28/03/2012, considering the decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) held that if there is a business purpose, while advancing money to its sister concern, the disallowance of interest cannot be sustained, supports the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court further held that there would not be any difference in the legal position whether the investment is made in the subsidiary company in the form of loan,…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sjr Commodities & Consultancies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms Beena Santosh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

…) 2007-08.The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest relying on the judgement in the case of M/s S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1 ) ignoring the subsequent judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (2012) (21 taxmann.com 97) wherein e Apex Court has held that the judgement in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) needs reconsideration ?" ii. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disall…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Aegis Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ubsidiaries/sister concerns were utilized by them for payment of service tax, sales tax, salary and other staff welfare expenses, etc. In this context, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, to submit that where money is advanced to the subsidiaries/sister concerns for commercial expediency and the funds so advanced are utilized by the subsidiaries/sister concerns for some business purpose, then the interest expenses incurred for availing such funds is liable to be allowed. It has also been pointed out that out of the total advances o…

Aegis Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7694/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ramuk Scan Investment Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2763/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 143(3)

…of business of Carolina to start the restaurant business and as such the same would fall under the ambit of commercial expediency. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 ( SC ) in support of its contentions. The assessee stated that it had invested the funds as share capital to its subsidiaries / sister concerns M/s. Meridian Medical Research & Hospitals 3 Ramuk Scan Inv. Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2006-07 Limited and M/s Carolina Food & Industries Pvt Ltd and advanced the funds to its subsidiary M/s Carolina Food & Industries…

Prodapt Solutions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1015/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1015/Mds/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 M/S. Prodapt Solutions Pvt Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Seshadri Road, V. Income Tax, Alwarpet, Corporate Circle –5(2), Chennai – 600 018. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacz0985G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vivekanandan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivekanandan, CIT

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36Section 40

…terest expenditure in P&L account ₹64,68,160/-. Whereas the interest has been paid by the assessee, on providing interest free loans to three subsidiaries and the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v CIT (Appeals) in 288 ITR 1, where it was held that the interest burden on funds advanced to a third party is allowable if it is for commercial expediency. The assessee company could not prove with any evidence that this amount is used for the purpose of business. Whereas, the Ld. TPO has made an Adjustment of interest on advances to Prodapt Corporation USA, therefore no acti…

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 157/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Piramal Glass Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As ‘Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.’) Income Tax 7(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 669A, 6Th Floor Piramal Tower Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400013 Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-0093-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 156Section 92C

…s been placed on following judicial pronouncements:- i. Assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 ITA No. 9645 & 9498/M/04 order dated 02/03/2016 ii. Assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 ITA No. 8360/M/10 order dated 16/12/2016 iii. S.A.Builders Vs. CIT [Supreme Court 288 ITR 1] iv. CIT Vs Reliance Utilities [313 ITR 340 Bombay High Court] v. CIT Vs Reliance Communication Infrastructure [207 Taxmann 219 Bombay High Court] vi. CIT Vs. Phil Corp. Ltd [244 CTR 226 Bombay High Court] vii. CIT Vs Shristi Securities [321 ITR 498 Bombay High Court] Per Contra, Ld. DR supported the stand lower authorities. We have heard various…

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

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 500/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S Laqshya Media Private Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 10(2)(1) Laqshya House Room No. 209 बनाम/ Saraswati Baug Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Society Road, Jgeshwari (E) M.K.Road Mumbai 400060 Churchgate Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-5004-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…ent Year 2010-11 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…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 2421/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No.2421/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 4

…ency has been explained. Identical issue had come up before my Ld. Predecessor in A.Y.2003-04 & 2004-05 and also undersigned for A.Y.2005-06 and 2006-07 wherein this ground of appeal was allowed relying on several judgements including that of SA Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1. The facts of the case are identical and hence following these judgements, the AO is directed to allow claim of appellant of interest u/d.36(1 )(iii) of the I.T.Act." 5.5 Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances, following my predecessor's decision, I direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard. This ground of appeal is…

Quantum Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2050/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 503, Regent Chambers ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACQ0281C v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–1(3)(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue by : Shri K.C. Kanojia Date of Hearing – 25.10.2016 Date of Order – 20.12.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal at the instance of assessee is dire…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…e its existing business. The assessee stated that this lending to subsidiary company was made as a measure of commercial expediency and accordingly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). Accordingly, it was pleaded that the interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable as 13 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was also stated that M/s Confident Solar Pvt Ltd in turn had used the sums for its business purposes by investing the same in their inventories by way of investment in shares of…

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘के’ म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री राजेंद्र, ऱेखा सदस्य एवुं श्री शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA no. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AABCG0093R v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shr…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 836/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

…nk interest of "4,96,460/- was deleted by the ITA No. 836, 1352 & 1851/Mds/14 :- 9 -: C.O. No. 54/14 & 01/Mds/15 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) and Another (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). Assessee had during the relevant previous year paid interest 18. of "68,57,763/- on its over draft and cash credit account. Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee had given interest free advances to its sister concerns, which were defunct or were not having any business. Ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that interest bearing borr…

Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1851/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

ACIT, Trichy vs. Dhandapani Cements Pvt. Ltd., Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1352/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escotrac Finance and Investments (Pvt.) Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1278/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri R.M. Mehta, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘ BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BENCH ‘ : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No 1278…