WebJul 10, 2009 · R & D: S.A. Builders Ltd. v CIT and another (SC) [2007 (288) ITR 1] (14/12/2006) Featured Video Labels Accounting Standards (15) article (16) BLANK FORMS (13) CA exams file (1) CA members (97) CA STUDENT (85) Case Laws (158) Companies Act (9) Company Secretary (5) Cost Accounting standards (3) Exchange rates (import and … WebJan 11, 2024 · In the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “ The expression ‘commercial expediency’ is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for …
M/s Hindalco Industries Co. v CIT on 09 August 2016 - Judgement ...
Web432 rows · S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 If the assessee debits the P&L A/c and … WebAug 9, 2016 · This provision came up for consideration in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). Court held that the term "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" and relied on its earlier decisions in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) and CIT v. smithsburg high school graduation 2023
SC To Reconsider Verdict In S. A. Builders on allowability …
WebDec 26, 2015 · The Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 63ITR 57 has held that the question whether an amount claimed as an expenditure has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee’s business or profession or vocation has to be decided on the facts and in the light of the circumstances of each … WebIn S.A. Builders Ltd.'s case (supra), it was held that in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, the authorities and the courts should have examined the purpose … Web[S.A Builders Ltd. v. CIT (A) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)] 16.8 He submitted that courts have held in various cases that the department cannot impute a notional income to an assessee, even if the consideration charged by an assessee for … smithsburg high school logo