Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

Decided
14 December 2006
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1092 · 2006 INSC 1011

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KATJU, MARKANDEY J. Leave granted.

p. 1093, margin B

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in IT A Nos. 8-9 of 2003.

p. 1093, margin B

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 1093, margin B

The appellant-assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil construction. It claimed for deduction under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was raised as an additional ground before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). In paragraphs 19-21 of its order dated 20.6.2002 the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee on two grounds. The first ground is that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction and was not carrying on any manufacturing activity. Hence, the claim was not allowable in view of the judgment of this Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja & Co., ( 1993) 204 ITR 412. The second ground for rejecting the claim was that the claim was not based on facts on record. The deduction under Section 32AB was not automatic and was subject to various conditions laid down in that provision. Whether the assessee fulfilled those conditions for claiming the deduction or not required examination into facts which were not on record. Even before the Tribunal the assessee had not placed any material to show how the assessee is entitled to such deduction. Hence the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim. By the impugned judgment the High Court has agreed with the view of the Tribunal.

p. 1093, margin C

We have also carefully considered the matter and we are fully in agreement with the Tribunal as well as the High Court.

p. 1093, margin F

For both the reasons mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraphs 19-2 l of its order, we are of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed by it. There is, tl)us, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. D.G. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1093, margin F