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

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…s is necessarily for the purpose of business/commercially expedient and in respect of providing/receiving such non- interest bearing advances, no question of making any disallowance should arise, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders v. CIT 288 ITR 1, the findings of the Hon`ble court is reproduced below: ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbc World India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…see and decide whether or not a transaction should have been entered or the quantum of expenditure to be incurred to run the business. It is for the assessee to take commercial decisions and decide how to conduct and carryon its business. [S.A Builders [2007] 288 ITR 1, SC]. It is also settled law that ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure is not maintainable unless the Assessing Officer is able to provide specific defects in the claim of expenditure made by the assessee. There is no dispute that the accounts have been tax audited and the auditors have not given any adverse comments. It is also clear that the assess…

Galaxy International Overseas, Dhuva, Wankaner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morbi

ITA 54/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 54/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Galaxy International Overseas Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Cas, Ward – 1, 1St Floor, “Sakar”, Shakti Chambers, Nh27, Anand Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Nagar, Opp. Rajkumar College, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot – 360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfg6749C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…the form of Partners' capital to the tune of Rs. 49,49,096/- which were much higher and sufficient to cover-up the interest-free advances of Rs. 20,48,777/- (iii) We notethat the ratio of Hon'ble judgment on Supreme Court judgment in case of S.A. Builders ( 288 ITR 1) squarely applicable in instant case. As per the Supreme Court ruling in case of S.A. Builders, the taxpayer has to establish commercial expediency for advancing of such interest free loan. (iv) We noteDuring the course of de-novo assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant had sufficient interest-free funds available in the…

Manish Mohanbhai Nandaniya, Jetpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Rajkot

ITA 41/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.41/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Mohanlal Nandaniya Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Satyam Park, Amarnagar Road, Ring Road, Jetpur - 360370 Rajkot - 360001

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura , Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.41/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Mohanlal Nandaniya Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Satyam Park, Amarnagar Road, Ring Road, Jetpur - 360370 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEFPN2148P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura , Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 13 / 12 /2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06/ 03 /2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM; Ca…

Kandla Export Corporation, Gandhidham vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

…s is necessarily for the purpose of business/commercially expedient and in respect of providing/receiving such non- interest bearing advances, no question of making any disallowance should arise, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders v. CIT 288 ITR 1, the findings of the Hon`ble court is reproduced below: “…..In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to Section 36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the pur…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R R Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2502/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2502/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. R R Industries Limited, Income Tax, Tvk Industrial Estate, Company Circle 1(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacr 3594H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…sidiary who are not in need and in similar line of business, may be, there can be a case to say there is no business exigency exists. This again is subject to the facts surrounding the ratio of the law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1(SC). However in the appellant's case it is not a Loan nor advance and the investment in share capital is for the purpose of business need and expediency for the advancement of the objects of business to capture the fast growing market. Without prejudice even assuming that the investments are with a view to earn dividends, the capital invested and t…

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…n, kindly refer JK Wollen (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). 3.2 Supporting Case Laws: In the facts of the present case, a useful reference can be made to the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 where it was held as under: “18. We have considered the submission of the respective parties. The question involved in this case is only about the allowability of the interest, on borrowed funds and hence we are dealing only with that question. In our opinion, the approach of the High Court as well as the authorities below on the aforesaid question…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S. Fuelco Coal India Ltd., Nagpur

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.90/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur v/s M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. 926–A, Fulwani Palace ……………. Respondent Central Avenue, Despande Layout Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAACF8231B Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 30/01/2025 Date of Order – 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sri Jayajothi Textile Mills Private Limited, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2216/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2216/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dy. Commissioner Of Sri Jayajothi Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 154, R. Reddiapatti Road, Corporate Circle, Keelarajakularaman, Madurai. Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar – 626 136. [Pan: Aabcs 5352B]

For Appellant: Shri V. Srikrishnan, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…s of Rs. 5,78,04,602/- relating to loan given to sister concern, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision this tribunal in assessee’s case on similar transaction in earlier year and on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC), has deleted the addition. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order of A.O has submitted that Section 14A of the Act has been amended :- 3 -: by Finance Act, 2020 and the provisions of this section is applicable, even in case where the income not forming part of total incom…

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Adilabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

…godown and the same was given on rent by the assessee. Therefore once commercial expediency for giving the advance is established, no part of the interest expenditure can be disallowed in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 379 ITR 347 where it was held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. If further held that no businessman…

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…upta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 425 ITR 420 (SC)/(2020) 117 Taxmann.com 871 (SC) has considered the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Wallchand & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 and SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) and reiterated the dictum that the Income Tax Authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the Assessee and to see how a prudent businessman would act. The Authorities must not look at the matter from their own point of view but that of a prudent businessman. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that this addit…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

…of the Act. 15. In appeal, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that exactly similar issue was decided by the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Essay Builders v/s CIT 288 ITR 1. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A), after noting that no advance was made to any associated entity during the year and the amounts P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 5924 & 6255/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Olive Bar and Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. advance earlier had already been held to be out of internal resources in the preceding years, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,37,07,281/-…

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

…of the Act. 15. In appeal, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that exactly similar issue was decided by the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Essay Builders v/s CIT 288 ITR 1. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A), after noting that no advance was made to any associated entity during the year and the amounts P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 5924 & 6255/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Olive Bar and Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. advance earlier had already been held to be out of internal resources in the preceding years, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,37,07,281/-…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…. The settled principle is that the question of charging of interest or not shall usually be decided by the assessee and its customers in a commercial transaction. Accordingly, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd vs. CIT (288 ITR 1)(SC) that if there is commercial expediency in giving interest free advances, then it is not necessary that the said advance should carry interest. The relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case are extracted below:- 3 “We have considered the submission of the respective parties. The question involved in this case is…

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…e settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld. 10. In the result, ground…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…venue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the licensed product in India, the benefit of adverti…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…venue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the licensed product in India, the benefit of adverti…

Bps Mineral Exports Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 26(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…is incurring interest expenses. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Revenue Authorities cannot decide as to how in which manner the assessee should conduct his business. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the LC discounting charges will not fall within the ambit of interest and hence, Section 26(1)(iii) cannot be pressed into service. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. 335 ITR 94 (Delhi). 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee h…

Praduyman Kumar Sharma, Meerut vs. ACIT Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2136/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2135/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2136/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2005-06] ITA No. 2137/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s PGF Ltd Central Circle - 4 [Formerly M/s Pearls Green New Delhi Forest [Ltd], New Delhi SCO, 1042-43, Sector -22C Chandigarh PAN: AABCP 2805 N (Appellant) Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Som…