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

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…of commercial expediency which is supplementary to the business of the appellant. Thus, the loan has been utilised for the purpose of the business of the appellant. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions: a) SA Builders Ltd vs CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) b) Shiv Raj Gupta 425 ITR 420 (SC) 6.13. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the appellant's effective rate of interest on long term borrowingsis 13.16% for the financial year 1999- oo (refer compilation page no. 105). Thus, if at all disallowance of interest is to be made then the same ought to be made considering the appellant's interes…

M/S. Bhikshu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Jeevan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1538/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

…al understanding and logic followed by corporate entities and the Assessing Officer could not claim to stand in the shoes of such businessmen and question commercial decisions. For this proposition, he relied on the case of S.A. Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC). He further argued that the assessee could not have done any better than submitting the kind of documents that he actually did for proving the genuineness of the impugned transactions. The Ld. AR took us through the contents of a paper book running into 472 pages which essentially contained the details of the share capital subscribers. The ord…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S. Savijana Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…t, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction Under Section 36(1) (iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used the word "commercial expediency". By using this phrase Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a new dimension and clarified the concept further. In the judgment the Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as "an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expendi…

Jt.CIT (OSD) Central Circle 16, New Delhi vs. Nidra Hospitality P.Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jt. Cit(Osd), Vs. M/S. Nidra Hospitality P. Ltd., Central Circle-16, 32/7, Plot No. 9, New Delhi Samalka, Nh-8, New Delhi Pan :Aaccn9116H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Jyoti Narula, Ca Ms. Himani Chauhan, Ca Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 68

…are at a higher price in no way affecting the interest of any other party and there is no instance of any tax evasion can be found since the appellant company is a wholly owned subsidiary of its holding companies. In the case of S.A Builders Vs. CIT(A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC), and CIT Vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot jump into the armchairs of the business to decide what is profitable and how the business should be carried out. In the instant case the appellant has explained the sources of money received a…

Shaha Finlease Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

…ncome tax department or revenue official cannot guide a businessman in which manner risk has to be undertaken. Such an approach of the revenue has been judicially frowned by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions, for instance in the case of SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC)and CIT vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd., 103 ITR 66 (SC). The Courts have held that Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of businessman to decide what is profitable 12 Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd., and how the business should be carried out. Here in this case if the investment has made keeping assessee's own business…

Titan Company Limited, Hosur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Ltu 2 (Ic), Chennai

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

…urpose or in furtherance of business objectives would not be correct. No business expediency of advancement of loan could be demonstrated by the assessee. For the same reason, the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.builders V/s CIT (288 ITR 1) as well the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Spencers & Co. Ltd. (47 Taxmann.com 55) would not apply. The decision of Chennai Tribunal in ACIT V/s W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. is factually distinguishable since the assessee's subsidiary was executing contracts on behalf of the assessee. The assessee settled the claim of subsidia…

DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry vs. Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., Pondicherry

Accordingly. The ground stand partly allowed

ITA 1395/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.974/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited Dcit बनाम/ #17, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry Circle, Vs. Pondicherry-605 011. Puducherry-605 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1395/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited बनाम Pondicherry Circle, # C-9 & C-10, Industrial Estate, / Vs. Puducherry-605 001. Thattanchavady, Pondicherry-605 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 69

…business of the assessee. In such a case, the test of commercial expediency would be satisfied and therefore, no such interest disallowance could have been made considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 holding that once the commercial expediency is established, the expenditure would be allowable to the assessee. Even otherwise, the assessee had sufficient interest free funds to make the advances. Therefore, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (410 ITR 466) would apply to the facts of the case. In…

Kesarwani & C0., Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT., Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.389, 390,391,392,425, 630 & 631/Alld/2014 AYs.2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2005-06, 2004-05 & 2006-07 Kesarwani & Company, Sahson, Joint Commissioner of Income Allahabad vs. Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad PAN:AADFK6562C (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos.20/Alld/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 (A/o ITA No. 425/Alld/2014) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kesarwani & Company, Central Circle, Allahabad vs. Sahson, Allahabad PAN:AADFK6562C (Appellant) (R…

Kesarwani & C0, Allahabad vs. Jt CIT, Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 390/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

Kesarwani & Co., Allahabad vs. Jt.CIT, Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/ALLD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Simoco Systems and ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata, Infrastructure Solutions Aaykar Bhavan, Limited, Kolkata, Chowringhee Square, Godrej Genesis Building, Kolkata - 700069 Vs 2nd Floor, Block EP and GP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700091 (PAN: AAKCS8592A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Indranil Banerjee, AR Respondent by : Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)

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

…s have been advanced to other persons in the course of business out of “commercial expediency”, the interest cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Reliance in the connection is placed on the following case laws:- S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A)(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) “24. In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other income-tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister company (…

Siwana Agri Marketing Limited (Now Merged With Vital Connections LLP), Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1094/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Siwana Agri Marketing Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ (Now Merged With Vital Circle-4(1)(1) V/S. Connections Llp) Ahmedabad 401, Ashopalav Apartments Near Suvidha Shopping Centre Paldi Ahmedabad – 380 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccs 9598 J (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(2)

…CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee failed to demonstrate any business purpose or commercial expediency for the advances, which is a key requirement under Section 36(1)(iii). Reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in S.A. Builders v. CIT (288 ITR 1), which mandates that advances must be for business purposes to qualify for deduction of interest expenses. The CIT(A) did not address the assessee’s argument that similar advances in prior years were not subjected to disallowance. In the absence of evidence substantiating the nexus of interest- free funds or demonstrating the business purpose of t…

DCIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wharton Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Wilful Finance Investment Co. Pvt.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT Vs. Wharton Engineers and Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi PAN No.AAACW0629C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Arvind Trivedi, Sr. DR. Respondent by Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, CA Sh. V.K. Garg, CA Sh. Parveen Kumar, CA Date of hearing: 19/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27 /11/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the revenueis directed against the ord…

Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal, Akola vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

…elated concern (i.e.) private limited company Khandelwal Jewellers Akola Private Limited. 3.3 The term for business purpose, used in the section 36(1)(iii) & Section 37 have been interpreted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC). “ In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' occurring under the provision of section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains', and this has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court. [Para 20] The Hi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Archean Industries Private Limited, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1615/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1615/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1589/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Archean Industries Private Ltd. बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) #2, North Crescent Road, / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-7344-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri M. Karthikeyan (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass (Ca) - Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT &For Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass (CA) - Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…cover the advances made for non-business purposes, then no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) could be made. 3.4 It was further stated that the assessee made advances as a measure of commercial expediency and the case law of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. (288 ITR 1) would also apply, Similar view was taken in various other judicial decisions which has been enumerated in the impugned order. 3.5 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that in the absence of any one-to-one finding that borrowed funds were utilized to make the advances, no such disallowance could have been made. The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Archean Industries Private Limited, R.A. Puram, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1589/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT &For Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass (CA) - Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 383/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited, Circle – 1(1)(2), 708, Cadila Corporate Campus Ahmedabad. Vs. Sarkhej Dholka Road, Bhat, Ahmedabad – 382 210. [PAN – AAACC 6251 E] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, 708, Cadila Corporate Campus, Circle – 1(1)(2), Sa…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 345/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I