THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD., AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the matter was covered by previous decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was confirmed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of guest fees, room charges, and hire charges. The assessee is a mutual association running a club for its members.
What were the issues?
Whether receipts from guests and members for club facilities are taxable income, and whether expenses incurred for earning such income are allowable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 are appeal by the revenue and cross objection of the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld.
& C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 2 . A.Y. 2013-14 CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad dated 19.12.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and following grounds have been taken: 1)"Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,25,08,392/- made on account of receipts from guests fees, room charges, hire charge and house participation. " 2) "Whether the Id. CIT(Appeal) is right in law on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,55,980/- on account of u/s. 57(iii) of the Act."
At the time of hearing, assessee company is a mutual association not engaged in any business activity and running a club for its members for providing sports, entertainment and extracurricular activities for member has not enhanced the quality life of its members.
3. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel mentioned that matter in question squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in preceding year for similar facts and circumstances and Co-ordinate Bench given relief to the assessee for similar grounds of appeal and relevant portion of the said & C.O. No. 51/Ahd/2016 is reproduced:
2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:-
"1. Whether the CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of guest fees, hire of rooms and hire charges in respect of club lawns aggregating to Rs. 1,46,86,476/-. 2. Whether the CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the Act of Rs.5,52,333/-."
At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by the series of ITA No. 562 & C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 3 . A.Y. 2013-14 decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case as is evident from the following judicial precedents:- i) & CO No.21/Ahd/2014; order dated 06.10.2016 ii) ITA Nos. 2239/Ahd/2011, ITA No. 1467/Ahd/2012, CO No. 195/Ahd/2011 & CO No.133/Ahd/2012; order dated 20.05.2016 iii) ITA No. 296/Ahd/2016 & CO No. 64/Ahd/2010; order dated 11.01.2013 iv) ITA No. 4075/Ahd/2008 and ITA No. 1346/Ahd/2010; order dated 10.12.2010 v) ITA Nos. 2793/Ahd/2006 and 1398/Ahd/2007; order dated 30.10.2009 vi) ITA Nos. 2121 & 2122/Ahd/1972-73 & CO Nos. 39, 40, 41 & 42/Ahd/1974-75; order dated 21.03.1975
4. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not point out any binding judicial precedent contrary to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel as referred above. In this view of the matter, and, respectfully following the decisions of co- ordinate bench in assessee's own case (supra), we decline to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, relief granted by the CIT(A) stands confirmed and approved.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
6. The Cross-Objection filed by the assessee was not pressed before us; therefore, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. In the result, the appeal and cross-objection - both are dismissed.
Since relief has been granted to the assessee by the series of judgment of ITAT, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) as he & C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 4 . A.Y. 2013-14 has passed detailed and reasoned order relying on the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017
Ld. A.R. stated that he does not want to press the cross objection, therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, appeal and cross objection filed by both the parties are dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 10 - 10- 2019
More judgments on Section 57(iii)
- Raghuraj Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs DCIT-ACIT Cirle Silchar/DCIT Circle 1…ITA 143/GTY/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Nagini Cooperative Credit Society Limited… vs ITO, Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore, BengaluruITA 619/BANG/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3412/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3411/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3410/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026