PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the club subscription fee is allowable as a regular business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. which settled this issue in favor of the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Punjab National Bank, claimed club subscription fees of Rs. 12,62,175/- as a business expense. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount, stating it was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether club subscription fees paid by a bank for membership are allowable as a business expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd.50 citing28 Taxmann.com 429 · 2012 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Punjab National Bank, Vs DCIT, Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, Circle-19(1), New Delhi-110075 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP0165G Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068184484(1) dated 30.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing it’s club subscription fee paid for acquiring membership, amounting to “4.9 Ground No. 9 is regarding disallowance of club fee of Rs.12,62,175/-. 4.9.1. In this regard assessee has submitted that Ld. AO while making this disallowance has stated that Fee of Rs.11,38,050/- paid towards subscription fee of Mayar health resorts ltd. and Rs.1,24,125/- paid towards subscription fee of Taj are not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore not allowable. However, no specific reason or any other argument has been given by the Ld. AO for the same. Bank has paid club fee and such clubs are used for holding the business meeting with its clients and accordingly the said expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore the same are allowable. 4.9.2. Though appellant has submitted that AO has not furnished any specific reason or argument for disallowance however assessee has also not submitted any substantial argument or document that such club expenses is related to any business expenses.”
Both the parties’ vehement submissions reiterate their respective stand against and in support of the impugned disallowance. The Revenue’s case more particularly is that it was the assessee’s onus to plead and prove before the learned lower authorities that the impugned expenditure of club membership had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of it’s business. We find no reason to sustain the impugned disallowance as hon’ble apex court in CIT Vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2012) 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC) has already settled the instant issue in assessee’s favour and Punjab National Bank against the department that such a claim is indeed allowable as regular business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground which is hereby accepted in very terms.
No other grounds or argument has been pressed before us.
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026