JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD., MUMBAI
In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed
ITA 3744/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The
For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A
…rance fee from the members was treated as capital in nature and majority of these orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITAT also relied upon the judgment of this court in CIT vs. Diners Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 1 (Bom.) and held that any sum paid by a member to acquire the rights of a club is a capital receipt. The ITAT has relied upon various receipts and held that the view of the Assessing Officer to treat the entrance fee as revenue receipt and not capital receipt was incorrect. 4. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied in…