THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 603/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 April 2019AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issues were covered by multiple co-ordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case. The Departmental Representative could not provide any contrary binding precedent.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of guest fees, room hire, and club lawn hire charges. The assessee contended that the issues were covered by previous ITAT decisions in their own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting additions related to club revenue and disallowances under Section 57(iii), considering prior ITAT rulings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 603/Ahd/2016
CO No. 51/Ahd/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President : 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 6th January 2016, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. 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/-.”

3.

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 decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case as is evident from the following judicial precedents:- i) ITA No. 2166/Ahd/2013 & 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

ITA No. 603/Ahd/2016 & CO No. 51/Ahd/2016 DCIT Vs. Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd & CO Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 2 of 2 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. Pronounced in the open court today on the 1st April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/-

Ms. Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Ahmedabad, the 1st day of April, 2019 *bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →