Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (7.13 seconds)
Documents citing Casa Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr Cit 6, Mumbai on 13 February, 2019

Smt. D. Sailaja, Chennai vs Dcit, Chennai on 23 December, 2019

CIT v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 97, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the decision in the case of SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT & Another, reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration. Otherwise also, vide order dated 23.11.2016 in I.T.A. No. 1146/Mds/2015 in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11 confirmed the disallowance by observing as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs Dcit Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai on 27 May, 2020

21. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the there was a close business connection between the assessee's business and MLPL business and therefore where the assessee had advanced loan it was clearly incidental for carrying out of his business, and the assessee has deep interest in the business of MLPL and thus the amount advanced by way of business experiences was allowable on account of business advances and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of SA Builders Ltd versus CIT (supra). We have noted that the alternative plea of the assessee was not accepted by ld CIT(A) by taking view that no cogent evidence is furnished by the assessee, the assessee not proved that loss occurred in the course of business or it was a trading loss and not capital. It was also held that there is no evidence that advance given to MLPL was utilised for the purpose of business. The assessee has also filed various documentary evidences, which we have recorded in para -3 supra. The assessee has certified that all these evidences were furnished before the lower authorities. We have noted the 20 ITA No. 5375 Mum 2016-Manoj Shivyag Singh alternative plea of business loss was raised for the first time before ld CIT(A) and it was rejected summarily without reference to the aforesaid evidence. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the alternative claim of business loss to the file of assessing officer to consider it afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh the assessing officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and will pass the order in accordance with law. In the result the ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 August, 2021

In SA Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and Others [(2007) 288 ITR 1], the Supreme Court considered a case where the assessee had diverted funds borrowed by it to a sister concern without charging any interest. The funds so borrowed incurred proportionate interest payable to the bank. The total interest paid to the bank for the amount so borrowed, was claimed as a deduction under section 37 of the Act. The claim was disallowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court interfered with the finding. It was observed in the said decision that "the correct view in our opinion was whether the amount advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party was advanced as a measure of commercial expediency".
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - B K Thomas - Full Document

Indira Constructions Private Limited, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad, ... on 28 October, 2021

10.1 The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, in which, the assessee has advances given to its subsidiary company, out of the debit balance from loan account and payments received from others, whereas, in the case under consideration, the amounts were taken from the bank as loan and given to MPCPL as interest free loan. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable t o the case of :- 12 -: ITA Nos. 394 to 396/Hyd/2017 Indira Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S.Us Technology International P. ... vs The Acit,Cir-1(1),, Trivandrum on 11 December, 2019

23.8. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 289 ITR 26 wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans, if the loans granted to its subsidiary is utilized for their business purpose. The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial precedents which have upheld the view that interest expenditure is allowable subject to the factor of commercial expediency:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 61 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next