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 366,470 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

Walchand People First Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2543/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 250

…the subsidiary company WTFL. The assessee company submitted that the assessee company has deep interest in its subsidiary company. In support, the assessee company relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was further submitted that the assessee company is a public limited company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, the directors had to perform certain management functions under various statutes/regulations, listing regulations under the SEBI Act and the mandatory corporate governance provisions etc, even though the DC-Business was transfer…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…143(3) of the Act (Page 6 of the paper book), no disallowance was made. All the entities were explained to be involved in identical activity and the assessee is holding company of all the entities. Reliance was placed upon the decision in S.A. Builder’s case (288 ITR 1) (SC) by claiming that the case of the assessee is identical to the decision pronounce in the aforesaid case. By explaining that ultimate utilization of funds has to be seen. The ld. counsel contended that there is no finding in the assessment order to the fact that the funds were not used or the money was not advanced for business purposes. Our at…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 10, Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S Singha Singh Roy & Associates Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1747/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.K Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Prasun Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate, ld.AR

Section 143(3)

…f advancing the monies ITA No.1747/Kol/2012-C-AM 2 M/s. Singha Singh Roy & Associates P.Ltd to its wholly owned subsidiary company. The Learned CITA placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) and deleted the disallowance of interest. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “1. Whether ld.CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata was justified in deciding the issue of Commercial expediency of loan given to sister concern without giving reason in his order?” 2.3. The Learned DR argued that the subsidiary company is in fore…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Kurlon Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Departmental appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…sufficient interest free funds available to the assessee to make advances to the subsidiary company. As the assessee advanced the funds to the subsidiary company as ‘commercial expediency’ the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1) squarely applies to the facts of the case. When the interest free funds are used for the purpose of business, no disallowance can be made. In view of this the submissions of the assessee are acceptable and additions of Rs.41,62,382/- is deleted and AO is directed accordingly”. 7. In the second round, the CIT(A) held that the issue has to be viewe…

M/S Priyadarshini Filaments Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1249/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92BSection 92C

…gricultural lands is not acceptable. In case it is found that the advances are made out of the borrowed funds, then the issue is to be adjudicated in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd Vs CIT & Another (2007) 288 ITR 1 and reiterated again recently in the case of Hero Motor Cycles Ltd Vs CIT in Civil Appeal 514 of 2008 dated 05-11-2015, wherein it was held that when the loans are advanced to the subsidiary company/sister concern out of the borrowed funds, the interest attributable to the amounts advanced to subsidiary/sister concern of the assessee company is t…

Johnson & Johnson Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 829/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Mr. PranayFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, DR

Section 143(3)

…the assessee submitted that the assessee had excess funds and relied on various financial statements, which are formed part of the paper book. He also relied on various decisions such as, the Apex Court judgment in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)]; jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities (313 ITR 340) (Bom.) against the AO‟s decision to disallow the sum of Rs. 1.72 Crs. 9. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the cited precedents, we find it relevant to remand the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on this issue after analysing…

Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5550/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotra & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: O R D E R

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 263Section 92C

…essee’s point of view. Reliance was drawn on the following judgments: - J K Woolen Manufacturers vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC) - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) ltd. 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) - UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) iv) No application of transfer pricing method by the TPO “It is submitted that the expenditure on payment of administrative/ corporate fee of Rs. 89,640,636 were incurred by the assessee, in the course of its business of provision of software development. In consideration of the administrative an…

Vinyroyal Plasicoates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1240/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.1240 & 1243/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Vinyroyal The Ito 9(3)-3, Plasticoates Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Plot No. 60Cd, Mumbai-400 020 Shlok Bldg., 1St Floor, Govt. Ind. Est, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 4165E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Mayur A. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12 .2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 17.12.2012 & 27.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Both These Appeals Have Common Grievance By The Assessee Therefore They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA Nos.1240 & 1243/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 बनाम/ M/s. Vinyroyal The ITO 9(3)-3, Plasticoates Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Plot No. 60CD, Mumbai-400 020 Shlok Bldg., 1st Floor, Govt. Ind. Est, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACV 4165E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Mayur A. Shah ""यथ" क"…

Kss Ltd (Formerly Known As K Sera Sera Productions Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, के ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 KSS Ltd. (formerly Known As DCIT RG 2(3)(1) K Sera Sera Productions Ltd.) बनाम/ R. No.556 Aayakar Unit No.101/102, IST Floor, Bhavan, Vs. Plot No.B17 Morya Landmark Mumbai-400020 II, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACG5103D Appellant by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (AR) Respondent by…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bmg Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6440/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Negi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Praeep Dinodia and Shri R. K. Kapoor, CA

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D ’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6440/Del/2013 Assessment year : 2010-11 ACIT, Circle 3(1), Vs. BMG Enterprises Ltd., 1st Floor, DCM Building, New Delhi 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi GIR / PAN:AAACB4657R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R. S. Negi, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Praeep Dinodia and Shri R. K. Kapoor, CA Date of hearing : 04.11.2015 Date of pronouncement : 04.12.2015 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: The appellant, ACIT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred a…

Tt Holdings & Services Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1284/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

…edly used the same for business purposes. It is nobody’s case that the director of recipient company used the money for personal purpose other than its business purpose. 3. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1, the Ld.counsel for the (2013) 217 Taxman 362 and on the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (2013) 260 CTR 159 and that of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 595. 4 I.T.A. No.1284/Mds/14 4. On the contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representa…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Grp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed”

ITA 3315/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri B V Jhaveri

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

…pany was Rs. 15,91,72,009/. Considering the above facts, the loan and investments of Rs.26.55 Lacs is out of the said reserves and surplus and not out of borrowed funds. We would like to invite your attention to the judgment of S.A. Builders Ltd v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) where it has been held that if the investment is for the commercial expediency , the same can not be disallowed even the same is made in the company under the same management. Similarly CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd- 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (2009). it has been held that if the investments are more than interest free funds available with the…

DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Kaytee Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri A.K.KardamFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Vissanji

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The ACIT, Circle 2(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Room No.545, 5th Floor, MK Road, Mumbai 400020 ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Kaytee Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Malhotra House, 2nd Floor, Opp. GPO, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 PAN: AAACK1732E .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri A.K.Kardam Respondent by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Date of hearing : 01/10/2015 Date of pronouncement : 20/11/2015 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Mumb…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…unds given to the sister concern on interest free, the interest can be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii). The decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Phalton Sugar Works Ltd has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders in 288 ITR 1 =(2006-TIOL-179-SCIT). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if funds given to the sister concern or its subsidiary for the purpose of own business or their business, then no disallowance can be made u/s 36(1)(iii) as it has to be taken into consideration that those funds are to be treated as used for business purposes. The ratio of…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Millennium Beer Industries Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is

ITA 931/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT, DR-I

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(3)

…factual matrix of the case by the various benefits the business of the assessee received (Supra)as laid out above. We do not find merit in the AO’s contentions to the contrary the view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A.Builders (288 ITR 1) (SC), wherein it has been held that revenue could not sit in the chair of a businessman and decide that he is to carry out his business in a particular manner. 8.3.3 The AO had invoked the provisions of Sec.40A(2) of the Act, to make the disallowance of the said payment of Rs.10.00 Crores by the assessee to UBL on the grounds that the said paym…

Global Exim, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT WD 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7564/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri A K Kardam

Section 143(3)

…e facts no notional disallowance of interest can be made on such advances, because they were purely and purely for business purpose and assesee’s case is squarely covered by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S A Builders Vs CIT, reported in [2007] 288 ITR 1. 4 Global Exim 6. The Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that one of the main business of the assessee was trading in DEPB and DFRC licenses. It has given advances to three parties for purchase of these licenses. Th…

Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S. Jayantilal Khandwala & The Dy. Commissioner Of Sons Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 201, Stock Exchange Tower, Vs. Range No.4(3), Dalal Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Churchgate, Pan: Aaacj9403D Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav, D.R

Section 73

…he Tribunal to the AO to consider the plea of the assessee whether the assessee had running business transactions with his sister concern and also to take into considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.A. Builders vs. CIT” (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and further with a direction to the assessee to place the relevant evidences before the AO to prove that in fact the finances were arranged by the assessee for its business purposes and that the assessee had paid commission to M/s. Sheen Metals and Trading Pvt. Ltd. for arranging the said finances. 5. In the denovo/fresh assessment proceeding…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I