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

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2364/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1295/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Asian Paints Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of बनाम/ 6A, Shanti Nagar, Income Tax –LTU Vs. Santacruz(East) Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai - 400055 29th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3825/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asian Paints Ltd. बनाम/ Assistant Commissio…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2363/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1295/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Asian Paints Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of बनाम/ 6A, Shanti Nagar, Income Tax –LTU Vs. Santacruz(East) Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai - 400055 29th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3825/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asian Paints Ltd. बनाम/ Assistant Commissio…

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG VIII, Mumbai

ITA 1295/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1295/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Asian Paints Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of बनाम/ 6A, Shanti Nagar, Income Tax –LTU Vs. Santacruz(East) Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai - 400055 29th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3825/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asian Paints Ltd. बनाम/ Assistant Commissio…

Asian Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Technical Instrument Manufacturers( India) Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 3825/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1295/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Asian Paints Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of बनाम/ 6A, Shanti Nagar, Income Tax –LTU Vs. Santacruz(East) Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai - 400055 29th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3825/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asian Paints Ltd. बनाम/ Assistant Commissio…

Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee's

ITA 169/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 14A

…ving negative cash flow and there is no commercial expediency in advancing loan to the subsidiaries. The assessee company did not have sufficient reserves of its own. Therefore the ratio of the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. V CIT(Appeals) & Anr. 288 ITR 1 (SC) is not applicable to the present case as the assessee failed to substantial the commercial expediency during the assessment proceedings. 16. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that a major part of this amount was advanced in the prior years and not during the year under consideration. This amount has already been prov…

M/S Vibhava Industries, Hubli vs. JCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 492/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…xpediency. It is settled position of law now that if interest free advances are given for business expediency, interest on borrowing to give such advances cannot be disallowed. This was so held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders reported in 288 ITR 1. 7. Regarding advances of Rs.25.00 lakhs to Shri Yashkaran Singh, this is the case of the assessee that this amount was given to him for purchase of land for the firm. Regarding payment of Rs.32.00 lakhs to Shri D.A.Ratan, it is the statement of the assessee that this person is a supplier of raw materials. Regarding advances to AICE India (P)Ltd.,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dsm Soft Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 863/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Dsm Soft Pvt. Ltd., No.1, 15Th Cross Street, Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle – 1(1), Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacd 3149 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sahadevan, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha, CA

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 863/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s DSM Soft Pvt. Ltd., No.1, 15th Cross Street, Income Tax, v. Corporate Circle – 1(1), Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. PAN : AAACD 3149 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Sahadevan…

Danmet Chemicals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6857/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…(1)(iii). He also held that the disallowance made by the AO of the said interest expenditure u/s 40A(2)(b) is justifiable. 5. The learned counsel of the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). He also referred to the ‘Articles of Agreement’ between the assessee and Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Specific reference was made by him to clause (c) of the above agreement. He also referred to the ‘Memorandum of Loan Sanction’ from the United Western Bank Ltd., Satara wherein the rate of interest has been fixed at 13.5%. He referred to para 17 of…

Danmet Chemicals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6856/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…(1)(iii). He also held that the disallowance made by the AO of the said interest expenditure u/s 40A(2)(b) is justifiable. 5. The learned counsel of the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). He also referred to the ‘Articles of Agreement’ between the assessee and Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Specific reference was made by him to clause (c) of the above agreement. He also referred to the ‘Memorandum of Loan Sanction’ from the United Western Bank Ltd., Satara wherein the rate of interest has been fixed at 13.5%. He referred to para 17 of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…e concerns doing finance business or trading. Therefore, there was business expediency involved. He further observed that the decisions relied by the AO had been overruled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that it was required to be enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency and if it was so, interest on borrowed funds was to be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 29. Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…e concerns doing finance business or trading. Therefore, there was business expediency involved. He further observed that the decisions relied by the AO had been overruled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that it was required to be enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency and if it was so, interest on borrowed funds was to be allowed. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 29. Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR s…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 4790/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…in it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 ( Cal. H.C) There…

Minacs P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 4276/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…in it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 ( Cal. H.C) There…

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT OSD 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 620/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…in it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 ( Cal. H.C) There…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd ( Formelry Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 610/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Rupinder Bror CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…in it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1.Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd ( 56ITR 52 ) (SC) 2.India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52) (SC) 3.S.A. Builders Ltd. ( 288 ITR 1) (SC) 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the company is allowable expenditure: 1. Shrishti Securities 321 ITR 498 ( H.C.Bom) 2. Rajeev Lochan Kanoria 208 ITR 616 ( Cal. H.C) There…

Renu S. Kochhar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 74/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NABIN KUMAR PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.74/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Mrs. Renu S. Kochhar 601, 6th Floor, Amore 2nd & 4th Road ……………. Appellant Near Khar Kabutarkhana Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AAPPK5797D v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–19(3)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri M. Subramanian Revenue by : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Date of Hearing – 09.08.2016 Date of Order – 19.08.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the order…

Alok Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 818/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…construction and development of real estate. For the said reason, it was canvassed that such investment was for furtherance of assessee’s business, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Televentures Ltd , 331 ITR 502 (Del) for the proposition that where interest bearing funds were advanced to (Assessment Year : 2008-09) subsidiary company, such advances were to be considered for business consideration as profits of the subsidiary wo…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…ill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1977) 223 ITR 101. (iii) CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (iv) Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (v) CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills (1972) 82 ITR 166 (vi)S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 40 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 The A.O. went through the submission of the assessee and distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee by observing as under:- “i) In the case of Jugal Kishore Baldev Sahai v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 228, the issue involved was that HUF had paid remuneration to its Karta and question was that whethe…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…ill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1977) 223 ITR 101. (iii) CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (iv) Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (v) CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills (1972) 82 ITR 166 (vi)S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 40 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 The A.O. went through the submission of the assessee and distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee by observing as under:- “i) In the case of Jugal Kishore Baldev Sahai v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 228, the issue involved was that HUF had paid remuneration to its Karta and question was that whethe…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2929/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/s. Real Trade Principal Commissioner Technologies Vs. of Income Tax-28 Office No. 101 3rd Floor, 6th Tower Real Tech Park Vashi Railway Station Plot No. 39/2 Complex, Vashi Sector 30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400 703. Navi Mumbai-400 705. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAIFR4687C Assessee by Dr. P. Daniel Department by Shri A.K. Srivastava Date of Hearing 14.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement 22.7.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the…