DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 25.09.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 04.12.2018.

ITA No.1561/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

ITA No.1561/Chny/2024 :- 3 -:

CIT(A) has deleted the addition as the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by the Spl. Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y 1989-90 to 2002-03 in to 2416/Mds/2005 reported in [2010] 39 SOT 438 (Chennai)(SB), and Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for A.Ys 2009-10 to 2015-16.

5.2 The Ld. D.R supporting the order of A.O has submitted that A.O has correctly assessed the total receipt as there is no basis for accounting income in 60:40 ratio. The Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee on the other had submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Spl. Bench of this Tribunal, supra, and coordinate bench in assessee’s own case in earlier years, therefore ground should be dismissed.

5.3 We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of Spl. Bench in assessee’s own case in to 2416/Mds/2005 for A.Y. 1998-to 2002-03 and Co-ordinate bench & 1089/chny/2018 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 . We accordingly find no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue.

ITA No.1561/Chny/2024 :- 4 -:

6.1 The assessee company has debited an amount of Rs.16,68,80,131/- under the head repair of resorts . The assessing officer held that the expenditure incurred is for setting up new resorts and for enduring benefit and therefore capital expenditure. The A.O therefore, disallowed the expenditure after allowing the depreciation at the rate of 10% . The Ld. CIT(A) held that similar disallowances was made in A.Y 2009-10 and Hon’ble ITAT in has decided the issue, therefore directed A.O to allow the claim as per decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y 2009-10 on same facts.

6.2 We have heard the rival submission and perusal the material on record. The Ld CIT(A) has directed A.O to follow direction ITAT in A.Y 2008-09 as facts are identical. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) order, A.O is therefore directed to allow the claim as per direction given by the Bench in A.Y 2009-10. The ground of appeal is dismissed accordingly.

ITA No.1561/Chny/2024 :- 5 -:

7.1 The assessee has entered into an agreement with company in Malaysia viz Heritage Bird(M) Sdn, Bhd for purchase of time share weeks for specified period and to pay management fee for maintaining service apartment in Malaysia. The A.O has held that assessee was liable to deduct TDS on payment of such fee as it is taxable in India u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act as fees for technical services. The A.O therefore has made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for has allowed the appeal subject to filing copy of TRC of Malaysian entity Heritage Bird and declaration of no PE.

7.2. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The issue is covered in favour of assessee by the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, :- 6 -: supra. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hence, dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue.

Order pronounced on 03rd January, 2025.