{"id":4856,"date":"2012-05-06T19:15:07","date_gmt":"2012-05-06T19:15:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4856"},"modified":"2012-05-06T19:15:07","modified_gmt":"2012-05-06T19:15:07","slug":"acit-vs-tulip-star-hotels-ltd-supreme-court-s-361iii-s-a-builders-288-itr-1-sc-to-be-reconsidered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-tulip-star-hotels-ltd-supreme-court-s-361iii-s-a-builders-288-itr-1-sc-to-be-reconsidered\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=715\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=715&varname2=tulip_star_hotels_SA_Builders_reconsideration.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (tulip_star_hotels_SA_Builders_reconsideration.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 36(1)(iii): S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) to be reconsidered<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee <em>borrowed funds and used it to subscribe to the equity capital of its subsidiary company<\/em>. The subsidiary company used the said funds for the purpose of acquiring the Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, Mumbai. The assessee paid interest on the borrowed money and claimed that a deduction u\/s 36(1)(iii). The AO rejected the claim though the CIT (A), Tribunal &#038; High Court (338 ITR 482) allowed it by relying on <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/law.incometaxindia.gov.in\/dittaxmann\/incometaxacts\/2008itact\/%5B2007%5D158TAXMAN0074(SC).htm\" target=\"_blank\">S. A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT<\/a><\/strong> 288 ITR 1 (SC). It was held that as the <em>assessee, being a holding company had a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advanced borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans<\/em>. On appeal by the department, HELD by the Supreme Court:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petitions. In our view, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/law.incometaxindia.gov.in\/dittaxmann\/incometaxacts\/2008itact\/%5B2007%5D158TAXMAN0074(SC).htm\" target=\"_blank\">S.A.  Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and Another<\/a><\/strong>, reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petitions. In our view, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/law.incometaxindia.gov.in\/dittaxmann\/incometaxacts\/2008itact\/%5B2007%5D158TAXMAN0074(SC).htm\" target=\"_blank\">S.A.  Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and Another<\/a><\/strong>, reported in 288 ITR 1, needs reconsideration<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-tulip-star-hotels-ltd-supreme-court-s-361iii-s-a-builders-288-itr-1-sc-to-be-reconsidered\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}