CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.

326 ITR 425High Court2010#1837 most cited

What is CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. authority for?

Corporate club membership fees, including admission and subscription fees, incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes to improve business relations and prospects, are allowable as revenue expenditure. This principle applies when there is a proximate nexus between the expenditure and the business.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. · section 37(1) · club membership fees · corporate club membership · revenue expenditure · business expenditure · allowable deduction · wholly and exclusively for business · proximate nexus

Also reported as

184 Taxmann 12064 DTR 4613 ITR-OL 639

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

proximate nexussection 10(35)dependent agent peservice pesection 135csr expendituresection 35(2ab)weighted deductionenduring benefitsection 10(34)transactional net margin methodsection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…Securities Limited wherein it was held that club fees paid with a view to improving business relations and prospects are allowable as business expenditure. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Samtel Color Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Delhi), as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Bayer Vapi (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 182 (Gujarat). 12. It was thus contended that the Assessing Officer, having allowed the expenditure in conformity with settled legal principles, could not be said to have committed any error, much less an error prejudicial to the interests…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR 2(1),KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 990/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Radesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35

…that the subscription fees paid to the membership of the club is only for business purposes in order to improve the business connections of the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Samtel Colour Ltd 326 ITR 425 that the same may be allowed as revenue expenditure. There is no dispute that the membership of the club was acquired only for business purposes. The membership fees is only revenue in nature in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court (supra). Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow this as revenue expenditure. 5 Sud Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. 9.…

AVIRAT RAJENDRA SONPAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURE

ITA 2198/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Avirat Rajendra Sonpal Dy. Commissioner Of 54/B, Miramar Co-Op Hsg, Income Tax, Cpc, Society, 3, L. Jagmohandas Bangaluru, Vs. Marg Napeansea Road, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahps2278R Assessee By : Shri Vishal D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 44A

…f Bombay in the case of Swiss Re Services India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay). The relevant paragraph is duly inserted as below:- “14. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd. (2009) 180 taxmann.com 82 (2010 326 ITR 425 held that admission fees paid to the club towards corporate membership is wholly and exclusively for business purpose and is revenue in nature. Paragraphs 5 to 5.3 of Samtel Color Ltd. (supra) read as under 5. Having heard the learned counsel for impugned judgment of the Tribunal deserves to be upheld for the following reasons the Revenue as well…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…r Delhi High Court (referred infra) allowing the claim for deduction representing 6 expenditure incurred on club membership. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: • Nestle India Limited: 296 ITR 682 (Del.) • CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.) - SLP filed by the Revenue dismissed in C.A No.6449/2012 • Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v. CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom) • CIT v. Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom) • CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom) • CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad) • Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 209 ITR 649 (Guj.) • CIT v. Inf…

CROSSEAS CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 3420/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Crosseas Capital Assistant Commissioenr Of Services P. Ltd., Income Tax (Central Suite 37, 5Th Floor, Circle)-2(4), Martin Burn House, Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, 1 Rn Mukherjee Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Kolkata, Old Cgo Annexe, West Bengal - 700 001 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aaccc5470H Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. & Shri Maneck Andhyarujina, Ar. Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 &

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

…70/MUM/2006) 2. Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd Vs ITO (ITA No. 3361/Mumm/2019) 3. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 195 ITR 682 (Bom) 4. Swiss Re Services India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT in 1323 of 2012 5. CIT vs Samtel Colour Limited reported in (2010) 326 ITR 425 (Del) 6. MKJ Tradex Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No. 1044/Kol/2016) 7. CIT vs United Glass Manufacturing Co Ltd [2012] 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC)[12-09-2012] 26. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 27. The assessee has claimed the expenses incurred pertaining to club membership of the Willingdon sports club which…

CROSSEAS CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL-2(4), MUMBA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Crosseas Capital Assistant Commissioenr Of Services P. Ltd., Income Tax (Central Suite 37, 5Th Floor, Circle)-2(4), Martin Burn House, Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, 1 Rn Mukherjee Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Kolkata, Old Cgo Annexe, West Bengal - 700 001 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aaccc5470H Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. & Shri Maneck Andhyarujina, Ar. Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 &

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina , A.R. &For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 234BSection 250Section 37(1)

…70/MUM/2006) 2. Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd Vs ITO (ITA No. 3361/Mumm/2019) 3. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 195 ITR 682 (Bom) 4. Swiss Re Services India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT in 1323 of 2012 5. CIT vs Samtel Colour Limited reported in (2010) 326 ITR 425 (Del) 6. MKJ Tradex Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No. 1044/Kol/2016) 7. CIT vs United Glass Manufacturing Co Ltd [2012] 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC)[12-09-2012] 26. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 27. The assessee has claimed the expenses incurred pertaining to club membership of the Willingdon sports club which…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…on surmises and conjunctures. Therefore. it is submitted that the groundof the appellant be allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT [1992] 195 1TR 682 (Bom)  CIT vs Samtel Color Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Del)  PC1T vs Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd [2019] 13 ITR-OL 639 (Guj)" 29.1 Considering, above judgments, the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. Ground of appeal no. 30 is allowed.” We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 26.2 Admittedly, neither the Ld.AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has verified…

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…on surmises and conjunctures. Therefore. it is submitted that the groundof the appellant be allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT [1992] 195 1TR 682 (Bom)  CIT vs Samtel Color Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Del)  PC1T vs Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd [2019] 13 ITR-OL 639 (Guj)" 29.1 Considering, above judgments, the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. Ground of appeal no. 30 is allowed.” We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 26.2 Admittedly, neither the Ld.AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has verified…

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…on surmises and conjunctures. Therefore. it is submitted that the groundof the appellant be allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  OTIS Elevator Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT [1992] 195 1TR 682 (Bom)  CIT vs Samtel Color Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Del)  PC1T vs Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd [2019] 13 ITR-OL 639 (Guj)" 29.1 Considering, above judgments, the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. Ground of appeal no. 30 is allowed.” We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 26.2 Admittedly, neither the Ld.AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has verified…

M/S. CHENGMARI TEA COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 675/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37

…hip fees incurred by assessee is business expenses u/s 37 of the Act and none of the decision challenged in this court. Similarly, in the case of Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. vs CIT (1995) 195 ITR 682 (Bom) and CIT vs Samtel Color Limited reported in (2010) 326 ITR 425. Similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that club charges, admission fee paid towards business expenses is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. 4 AY: 2018-19 M/s. Chengmari Tea Company Ltd. 8. Considering these facts and ratio laid down in above decision, we are inclined to set aside the orde…

CHERRY HILL INTERIORS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADD. CIT SPL. RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Cherry Hill Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, E-36, East Of Kailash, Special Range-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccc2197F

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Ms Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cherry Hill Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, E-36, East of Kailash, Special Range-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AACCC2197F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Dubey, CA Revenue by : Ms Maimun Alam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.1779/Del/2019 for AY 2014-15 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi [he…

NEW GLOBE LOGISTIK PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WD2(3) (3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 143(1)

…nning the business with a view to produce the benefits to the assessee. Consequently, it cannot be treated as capital asset.” We also find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samtel Color Limited reported in 326 ITR 425 wherein it was held as under : “The expenditure incurred towards admission fee was towards corporate membership. The nature of the expenditure was one for the benefit of the assessee. The 'business purpose' basis adopted for eligibility of expenditure under section 37 was the correct approach. That was more so in view of the Tribunal's findings t…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., vs DCIT, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2010-11] DCIT, vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, CA R…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., vs DCIT, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2010-11] DCIT, vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACM0829Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, CA R…

TIL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 558/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 TIL Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata (PAN: AABCT 0704 G) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 30.11.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 23.12.2022 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Sudipta Guha, CITDR राज"व…

DCIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…expenses incurred by the executives on club. Tire Ld. CIT(A) Page 4 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. following the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 425 (Del) and CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 682 (Del.), held that the club membership fees, life membership fees or annual fees, for the benefit of the employees is allowable the expenditure and accordingly, deleted the said disallowance. 10. The Ld. DR. submitted that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance on the ground that the asse…

DCIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…expenses incurred by the executives on club. Tire Ld. CIT(A) Page 4 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. following the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 425 (Del) and CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 682 (Del.), held that the club membership fees, life membership fees or annual fees, for the benefit of the employees is allowable the expenditure and accordingly, deleted the said disallowance. 10. The Ld. DR. submitted that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance on the ground that the asse…

DCIT, MURADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5121/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Vs. Jcit, (Earlier Known As M/S. Range-1, Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd.), Moradabad Plot No. 1A, Sectore-16A, Noida Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Jubilant Moradabad Life Sciences Ltd.), Gajraula, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…igh Court. The honourable Supreme Court has also held in CIT vs. United Glass manufacturing company limited civil appeal number 6449 of 2012 that club expenses are also PO of business expenditure. The honourable Delhi High Court has also taken similar view in 326 ITR 425 and 218 taxmann 69 in view of this ground number 3 of appeal of assessee is allowed.” 3.3 Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we allow assessee’s claim of deduction. Consequently, disallowance is deleted. This ground is allowed.” 3.5 Facts being identical, respectfully following the consistent vie…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4