S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals)

338 ITR 482High Court2011#5039 most cited

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

The deletion of a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is upheld when relied upon by other judgments.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals) · 338 ITR 482 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest free advances · business expediency · DRP deletion · CIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 14ASection 2(28A)Section 250Section 28Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ca(3a)objections before drptax collected at sourcemanagement feestransfer pricing orderinterest free advancesbusiness expediencysection 36(1)(iii)section 194hdomestic companycommercial expediencycredit for tds

Judgments citing S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals)

M/S. Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3108/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3108/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5336/Mum/2008, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. Addl Cit,Range-3(2) (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.) Mumbai. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg Vs. Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaci 0995 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3136/Mum/2007, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit,Range-3(2) Vs. M/S.Icici Securities Ltd. (Formerly Known As Icici Securities Ltd.),Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri Alok Johari & Arju Goradia-Sr.Dr Assessee By: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: S/Shri Alok Johari and Arju Goradia-Sr.DR
Section 254(1)Section 36

…e AO is also deleted and consequently Grounds no.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed.” Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, and considering the judgments of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (313 ITR 340), Tulip Star Hotels Ltd.(338 ITR 482),we decide the 1st Ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. 3.Disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 2.44 crores u/s.14A of the Act is the subject matter of next ground. We find that identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal while deciding the appeals for the AY.s 2000-01 to 2002-03.While dealing with the firs…

Jaguar International Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4371/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…s also not allowable as per Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 7. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) " CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " Addl. CIT Vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. 338 ITR 482 (Del.) " CIT Vs J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 200 Taxman 101 (Del.) " Cornerstone Exports (P) Ltd. 67 Taxmann.com 345 (Guj.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee debited an amount of Rs.48,97,072/- to its profits and loss 15 J…

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…section 36(1)(iii) can be made. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) S.A. Builders v/s CIT, 288 ITR 001 (SC); ii) CIT V/s Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd., 29 taxmann.com 118 (Bom.); and iii) CIT v/s Tulip Star Hotels, 338 ITR 482 (Del.). 17. Learned Departmental Representative justifying the addition made by the Assessing Officer submitted, the principle laid down in 13 Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. S.A. Builders (supra), has been doubted and the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench. 18. In rejoinder, learned Authorised Representative submitted, in assessee‟s own case f…