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 367,154 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 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

Climax Investment & Trading Co.P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5518/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Climax Investment & Trading Ito Wd 2(1)(2) Co. P. Ltd. Now Cinemax Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Wintrade P. Ltd. M.K. Rd Vs. Friendship Centre, Opp. Mumbai-400020 Ymca Garden, Mumbai Central, East, Mumbai-400011 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcc1364M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Ms. Sudha Ramchandran राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By (Dr)

Section 143(3)

…s, shown to us that all the transactions were part of assessee’s business activities and were done as a matter of commercial expediency and reliance in this regard has been placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC), for the proposition that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purpose of business, then revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself onto the arm chair of the businessman to decide what expenditure is to be incurred and to what extent. With the assistance of the parties, it has been 5 Climax Investment &…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Good Leather Shoes (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Good Leather Shoes (P) Ltd., 47, Thiruvengadam Street, 1St Floor, Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle 2(1), Periamet, Chennai - 600 003. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacg 8998 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. M. Karunakaran, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 14A

…estment for earning any exempted income. The assessee made the investments with an intention to do business. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there cannot be any disallowance in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of this Bench in Mr. M. Baskaran (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Investments made by the assessee in subsidiary companies are for…

M/S. Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2009-10 Lauls Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle Ii C/O M/S Malhotra Khandelwal & Co. Faridabad 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor Faridabad 121 001 Pan: Aaacl 3118 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Panwal, C.A. and Sh. Rakesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmita Jha, Sr. D.R

Section 40

…here are interest free funds as well as interest bearing funds and if there are interest free advances given, the presumption should be that interest free funds have been advanced. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.A.Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus for all these reasons this ground of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th May, 2016. (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 05th May, 2016 *manga ITA 811/Del/2014 A.Y.: 2009-10 Lauls Ltd., Faridabad Copy…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.641/Mum./2007 (Assessment Year : 2003–04) Strides Shasun Limited (Formerly known as Strides Arolab Ltd.) 201, Devavrata, Sector–17 ……………. Appellant Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 PAN – AADCS8104P v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–10(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ITA no.4063/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–10(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 v/s Strides Arc…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…SC) • CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) • CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011(Del HC) • CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) • CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. (supra), (Del)…

M/S Bharti Teletech Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 753/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.753/Del./2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/s. Bharti Teletech Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (1), D – 195, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase – I, New Delhi – 110 020. (PAN : AABCB8884F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anil Bhalla, CA REVENUE BY : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR Date of Hearing : 13.04.2016 Date of Order : 29.04.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Bharti Teletech Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘…

M/S Kbd Sugars & Distilleries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1062/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CIT-III (D.R)

Section 14A

…st-free advances made to the sister concerns in the instant case. It is also not the argument of the appellant that the interest-free advances were for any commercial expediency. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders [288 ITR 1] is not applicable to the instant case. The AO relied on the following decisions i) Abhishek Industries [20S CTR 304 (P&H)] ii) Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. [20S CTR 304] iii) Doctor & Co. [180-ITR-627] 4.7 The Hon' ble Punjab & Haryana High' Court followed the decision in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. while giving decision in the Varinder…

Amd Far East Limited Indian Branch, Bangalore vs. Jdit, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Shri Vijaypal Raoassessment Year : 2007-08 Amd Far East Limited – Indian Branch Office Vs. Joint Director Of Income Tax (Since Taken Over By Amd India Private Ltd.), (International Taxation – I, Poddar Heritage Building, Bangalore. 28 Cubbon Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadca 1739L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P. C. Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Ms Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…e of the HO, it should be allowed. He also submitted that as per commercial expediency also, this should be allowed and in support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of S. A. Builders as reported in 288 ITR 1. 15. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the order of A.O./TPO/DRP. She also submitted that regarding this contention that if this expenses is disallowed, the same should be excluded from expenses of the assessee company to work out operating profit of the assessee company for TP adjustment, she submitted that on this aspect,, the…

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…1,39,405/- on account of disallowance of proportionate interest expenses in respect of investment of Rs. 260.26 crors made by assessee in its subsidiary M/s Unitech Overseas Ltd. without appreciating that judgment in the case law of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 was not final and the said investment was not legal in the first place. 10 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,39,46,799/- due to disallowance of interest payment to Tata Reality & Infrastructure Ltd. without appreciating that there were not enabling clauses in the MOU betwee…

Sameta Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4229/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2004-05 M/S Sameta Exports Pvt. Acit, Ltd. Circle-1(3), बनाम/ 4Th Floor, N.K. Mehta Room No.540/564, Vs. International House, 178, 5Th Floor Backbay Reclamation, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aarcs4409H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 68

…interest of business/commercial expediency and the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and then decide in accordance with law. The ld. Assessing Officer may consider the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs Amritaben R. Shah 238 ITR 777, along with other cases, if any. This appeal of the Revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Now, we shall take up the appeal of Assessment year 2006-07 (ITA No.4251/Mum/2010), wherein, issue of deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,44,33,383/-, being the interest on borrowed funds adv…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dsm Soft Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2062/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha, K. ACA

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…deleting the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital diverted for giving interest free loans to the group concerns of the assessee and for investment in the equity shares of the assessee's subsidiary company applying the decision of the Supreme Court in 288 ITR 1 without considering the difference in the facts containing in the assessee's case. 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the legal fiction created by the clarificatory explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 giving the same retrospective effect from 01.06.1976. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the intent of the legisla…

Igarashi Motors India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 878/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Igarashi Motors India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No.B-12 To B-15, V. Income Tax, Phase Ii, Mepz Sez, Company Circle Ii(3), Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacc 1305 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Arun C. Bharath, CIT

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ssee are for commercial expediency. It is not the case of the Revenue that the sister concerns, which received the investments, diverted the funds for non-business purposes. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the investments made by the assessee in the equity shares of the sister concerns, which were established by joint venture, have to be necessarily treated as for business purpose. Therefore, as rightly found by this Tribunal by majority decision in EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. (supra), the dividend inc…

Sri. K. Kiran Shetty vs. DCIT

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. R. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…e borrowed funds are utilized for investment for commercial expediency no disallowance is called for on account of such investment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Vs CIT 288 ITR 1. 17. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that when the assessee has admitted the disallowance before the AO, there was no opportunity and scope of making other enquiry or examination of the claim of the assessee. The assessee raised this issue first time before this Tribunal that the investment in sister concern was made for commercial ex…

Asian Advertising, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2349/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 31Section 32Section 37

…tted that the funds are borrowed for the purpose of business and are deployed for business keeping in view the commercial expediency, the same needs to be allowed as deduction relying on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Limited in 288 ITR 1(SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that Mumbai-Tribunal in the case of M/s Creasons (supra) has allowed the claim of the assessee on identical situation. In the case of another group concern M/s Empress Advertising for the assessment year 2007-08 whereby the CIT(A) vide order dated 2-3-2012 also allowed the ground raised by the said Empress Advertising…

D.B. Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6339/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6339/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) D B Properties Private The Addl. Commissioner बनाम/ Limited, Of Income Tax, V. Db House, Yashodham, Range -9(1), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 063. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccd5197L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ajitkumar Srivastava

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tate; ITA 6339/Mum/2012 4 (ii) Nature of advance so granted, being for a proposed real estate project; (iii) Principle of commercial expediency; (iv) Guiding principles laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the matter of SA Builders reported in 288 ITR 1. (c) The necessary disclosure of claim of such interest expenditure / financial charges has been made vide Note No. 1 forming part of the statement of computation of total income submitted to your goodself vide our letter dated 1st June, 2011. (d) The Holding Company has divested its investment in the assessee company during the financial year 2010…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Labham Finance Limited

ITTA/204/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Cargill Financial Services Asia Pte Ltd.- in Liquidation, Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5260/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)

Section 2

…t the AOIDRP cannot question the genuineness of expenditure/ transactions being undertaken by an entity with any party unless there is something on record to prove otherwise. Reliance in this connection is placed on Supreme Court judgment of SA Builders v CIT 288 ITR 1 and Delhi High Court judgment of CIT v Dalmia Cements Pvt Ltd 254 ITR 377. Contention No.3: Para 13 of the Ld. DR's submission i.e. Arguments culled out from the DRP's order Contention on non-cooperation of the assessee in respect of submitting complete trail of documents and limited information available by the assessee: The Appellant had duly sub…

Cargill Tsf Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)

Section 2

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Enercon India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4089/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6751/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Enercon India Limited, –Range 8(1), Enercon Tower, A-9, Room No.210, Veera Industrial Estate, फनधभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, Veera Desai Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)

…poses of the directors of the companies but used for the purposes of business and were given purely for commercial exigency and therefore interest thereon could not be disallowed as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Limited V/s CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 3.2 The ld. DR vehemently submitted before us that the interest disallowance of Rs.2.42 crores was wrongly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the facts that the interest free loans to the subsidiary companies were given out of the interest bearing funds raised by the companies and therefore prayed for setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A)…

A.C.I.T. 8(1), Mumbai vs. Enercon India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri J P Bairagra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(a)