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.

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 1)

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER TATA Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 PAN: AAACT 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by Shri Dinesh Vyas, AR Respondent by Shri Alok Johri, DR Date of hearing 22-06-2016 Date of pronouncement 20-07-2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of I…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

ITA 1549/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: The Special Bench:

…hivnandan Buildcon Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(2015) 60 taxmann.com (Del)] in support of the proposition that notional interest cannot be brought to tax. Learned counsel then takes us through Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of SA Builders Ltd Vs CIT [(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)] and points out that when assessee has deep interest in the other company, as a subsidiary, grant of interest free loan is fully justified on commercial considerations. By the same logic, according to the learned counsel, no ALP adjustments can be justified in respect of notional interest. Learned counsel then takes us through the definition o…

Quantium Advisors P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhquantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 503, Regent Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan:Aaacq 0281C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry/Niraj D. SethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…, which is a separate taxable entity. Thus, as per the Revenue, such expenditure is for the benefit of a third party and not for assessee’s business. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., 288 ITR 1 (SC), which was also relied upon before us by the learned representative for the assessee. Though the judgment of the Hon'ble 24 Supreme Court was in the context of Sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act relating to expenditure on interest, but the observations of the Hon'ble Court are relevant for Sec. 37(1) of the Act due to the presence of the expression…

Sh. Jhawan Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1426/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Dawar & Nitin Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1426/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) Shri Jhawar Lal Jain, vs. ACIT, Circle 51 (1), 61/13B, Ramjas Road, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. (PAN : AAAPM2547G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Paras Dawar & Nitin Goel, CAs REVENUE BY : Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 27.06.2016 Date of Order : 11.07.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Shri Jhawar Lal Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by…

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4269/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MBMER, AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3949/Mum./2009 (Assessment Year : 2001–02) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Afcons House, 16 Shah Indl. Estate Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar P.O. ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 058 PAN – AAACA9067G v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ITA no.4269/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2001–02) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 0…

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Rajendra H. Salot, Ito-15(1)(4), 18, Maheswar Prakash, Mumbai बनाम/ Building No.1, Jain Derasar Vs. Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aalps6170L

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40

…SC). It was pleaded that before section 40(A)(2) is invoked, it has to established that either interest is excessive or unreasonable. It was explained that these were business advances. Reliance was placed upon the decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(Sc) and in Hero Cycles (Pvt.) Ltd. vs CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC). On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief, 3 Rajendra H Salot are that the assessee, an individual running his business as propri…

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3491/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80H

…the interest attributable to interest free advances was Rs. 3,00,18,97/- only. Assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. ITA Nos. 3490 TO 3495/Del/2011 Paliwal Overseas Ltd. Page 7 of 47 CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that since the capital of the assessee has already been applied for other business purposes, it was reasonable to conclude that interest free advances had been made out of interest bearing funds. The ld. CIT (A) was also of the opinion that the exact source of making the interest free advance had not been…

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 3490/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80H

…the interest attributable to interest free advances was Rs. 3,00,18,97/- only. Assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders vs. ITA Nos. 3490 TO 3495/Del/2011 Paliwal Overseas Ltd. Page 7 of 47 CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that since the capital of the assessee has already been applied for other business purposes, it was reasonable to conclude that interest free advances had been made out of interest bearing funds. The ld. CIT (A) was also of the opinion that the exact source of making the interest free advance had not been…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6854/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…ntrol Account (on which interest is received) and stock of premises etc. Thus the interest expenditure was incurred for commercial expediency of the business of the assessee. The reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgement in the case of S A Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) where it is held that if the nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business is established the same is allowable. In the assessee's case the purpose of borrowing is directly linked to the business of the Silver Developers and not to the WIP of the JV project, hence the interest paid by the assessee on the funds borrowed 11 Jags…

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6733/MUM/2011[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…ntrol Account (on which interest is received) and stock of premises etc. Thus the interest expenditure was incurred for commercial expediency of the business of the assessee. The reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgement in the case of S A Builders vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) where it is held that if the nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business is established the same is allowable. In the assessee's case the purpose of borrowing is directly linked to the business of the Silver Developers and not to the WIP of the JV project, hence the interest paid by the assessee on the funds borrowed 11 Jags…

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5410/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5410/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Shri Chandrasekhar Maruti Vs. Acit-10(2), Mumbai- Musale Flat No.1203/1204, 400020 12Th Floor, Carlyle Raheja Garden, Lbs Marg, Off. Tip Top Thane, Mumbai-400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpm 3914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Chetan A. Karia राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. S.Pandian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 21-5-2012. 2. The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated The Addition Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) At The Hands Of The Assessee On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property & Other Sources. The Assessee Was Having Major Shareholding In 3 Companies Namely; (I) M/S.Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. (Ii) M/ S. Advance Scientific Equipment P.Ltd. & (Iii) M/S. Star Earth Minerals P.Ltd. During Assessment Proceedings, From The Replies Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Noticed That M/S. Anachem Instruments India P.Ltd. Had Advanced An Amount Of Rs.31,00,000/- On 16.12.2008 To M/S. Advance Scientific Equipment P. Ltd. & M/S.

Section 2(22)(e)

…tween the said three companies which were having running accounts with each other. The assessee has not received any direct or indirect individual benefit out of these transactions. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.A.Builders Vs. CIT” (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the context of expenditure allowable u/s.37 of the Act has observed that what is to be seen as to whether the assessee advanced loan to its sister concern or a subsidiary as a measure of commercial expediency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that “for the purpose of business” includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commerc…

Nandkishor & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

…sinessmen and the AO cannot sit in the armchair of businessmen. The interest expenditure was duly incurred by the assessee-firm on the borrowed funds. The assessee–firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.A.Builders (2007)288 ITR 1(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sahni Silk Mills Private Limited (2001)253 ITR 294(Del. HC). The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee-firm and held that the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act are very clear and hence there is no room for ambiguity. The AO held that the omission is not justified and i…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…eported in (1963) 47 ITR 469 (AP) b) Woolcombers of India Ltd vs CIT reported in 134 ITR 219 (CAL) c) CIT vs Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 (MAD) d) CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (CAL) e) S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) f) Addl. CIT vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd in CC No. 7138-7140 / 2012 dated 30.4.2012 by the Supreme Court , wherein it was held as below:- In our view, S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration. Though it is stated that the decision in S.A.Builders Ltd in 288 ITR 1 (SC) requires reconsideration, notice has been ordere…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…eported in (1963) 47 ITR 469 (AP) b) Woolcombers of India Ltd vs CIT reported in 134 ITR 219 (CAL) c) CIT vs Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 (MAD) d) CIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd reported in 280 ITR 525 (CAL) e) S A Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) f) Addl. CIT vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd in CC No. 7138-7140 / 2012 dated 30.4.2012 by the Supreme Court , wherein it was held as below:- In our view, S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration. Though it is stated that the decision in S.A.Builders Ltd in 288 ITR 1 (SC) requires reconsideration, notice has been ordere…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5715/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle 3(3) Ms/ Videocon Industires Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor 171-C, Mittal Court Vs. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan - Aabcv4012H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.M. DossFor Respondent: Shri Shailesh S. Shaw

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…poses of business. In support of the proposition that no disallowance of interest expenditure ought to be made under section 36(1)(iii) the learned D.R. of the assessee, inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial decisions: - i) S.A. Builders Ltd. (288 ITR 1) (SC) - on grounds of ‘commercial expediency, such expenditure is allowable. ii) CIT vs. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 498 (Bom) - for the reasons that if funds are borrowed by an investment company for making investment in shares for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest, such borrowed funds would be deductible. iii) Reliance…

Ac Nielesen Org-Marg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 8799/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8799/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Nielsen (India) Private Limited Addl. Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg (Formerly Known As M/S. Acnielson Org- Marg Private Limited) Mumbai-400 020. 6Th Floor, Block C, Godrej It Park, 02 Vs. Godrej Business District, Lbs Marg, Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 079. Pan:Aaacm 9279 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish Soparkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 24.10.2011 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us, The Authorised Representative (Ar)Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Ground Number Six, Considering The Smallness Of The Tax Effect.Therefore, Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed. 2.Assessee-Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Valcon, Which Is Part Of The Ac Nielsen Group. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Customised Market Research Services Including Quantitative & Qualitative Consumer Studies, Print Media Measurement Services & Retail Measurement Services Which Includes Retail Tracking, Modeling & Analytics & Category Manage - Ment.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/10/2007, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 18.12 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 24/10/2011,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 33.77 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 92

…ken to meet the competition prevalent in the market and to stave off the competitors. This is the domain of the busi nessman 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 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it…

The ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4107/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The ACIT, CC-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The ACIT, CC-17 & 28, M/s. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा स…

M/S. J B Boda & Co Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT CC 17 & 28, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4022/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The ACIT, CC-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The ACIT, CC-17 & 28, M/s. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा स…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 988/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…R submitted that the security was paid due to commercial expediency and therefore no disallowance for not charging interest could be made following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). Further, the ld. AR also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 CIT 379 ITR 347 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (2009) 183 taxmann 422. 14.3 On the other hand, ld. CIT (DR) relying on the order of the autho…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 801/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…R submitted that the security was paid due to commercial expediency and therefore no disallowance for not charging interest could be made following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). Further, the ld. AR also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 CIT 379 ITR 347 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (2009) 183 taxmann 422. 14.3 On the other hand, ld. CIT (DR) relying on the order of the autho…

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

What is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

Quantium Advisors P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

Sh. Jhawan Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

Rajendra H Salot, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

M/S Paliwal Overseas Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

Chandrasekhar Maruti Musale, Thane vs. Asst CIT 10(2), Mumbai

Nandkishor & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Ac Nielesen Org-Marg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

The ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

M/S. J B Boda & Co Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT CC 17 & 28, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi