CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd.

240 ITR 335High Court1999#2002 most cited

What is CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. authority for?

Club membership fees are allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) if incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospects.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. · 240 ITR 335 · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · club membership · allowability · business relations · furtherance of business · Madras High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 14A Section 250 Section 69C Section 10(38)Section 115-BBE(2)Section 115JB Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 215 section 23a retention money section 145(1)section 256(1)section 211 section 115baa section 256 section 28(iv)section 145(2)short deduction of tds section 35d

Judgments citing CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rship is allowable as business expenditure as the same is incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospective. Reliance is further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sundram Industries Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Madras). 96. In the last, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also considering the details filed before the AO, containing the bills and vouchers of expenditure claimed, has allowed the same as business expenditure u/s 31(1) of the Act ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others as the same were mainly incurred for…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rship is allowable as business expenditure as the same is incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospective. Reliance is further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sundram Industries Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Madras). 96. In the last, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also considering the details filed before the AO, containing the bills and vouchers of expenditure claimed, has allowed the same as business expenditure u/s 31(1) of the Act ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others as the same were mainly incurred for…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rship is allowable as business expenditure as the same is incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospective. Reliance is further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sundram Industries Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Madras). 96. In the last, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also considering the details filed before the AO, containing the bills and vouchers of expenditure claimed, has allowed the same as business expenditure u/s 31(1) of the Act ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others as the same were mainly incurred for…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rship is allowable as business expenditure as the same is incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospective. Reliance is further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sundram Industries Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Madras). 96. In the last, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also considering the details filed before the AO, containing the bills and vouchers of expenditure claimed, has allowed the same as business expenditure u/s 31(1) of the Act ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others as the same were mainly incurred for…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rship is allowable as business expenditure as the same is incurred by the assessee to improve its business relations and prospective. Reliance is further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sundram Industries Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Madras). 96. In the last, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts and also considering the details filed before the AO, containing the bills and vouchers of expenditure claimed, has allowed the same as business expenditure u/s 31(1) of the Act ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others as the same were mainly incurred for…

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

…ng. At the most, the Assessing Officer can take these expenses as perquisite. If the expenses personally related to the offices of the company, our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in 239 ITR 237 and Madras High Court 240 ITR 335 (Mad). Thus, this ground stands allowed. This disposes off all the appeals taken by the assessee." Respectfully following the judicial precedent in assessee's own case, this issue of the club expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. 16 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT 6. Grounds No. 5, 6 and 7 of the appeal are consequential in nature i…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…Further the fact that the tax auditor has not qualified the report substantiates the fact that the said expenses were not incurred for personal use. 12.2 Therefore, considering the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Sundaram Industries (240 ITR 335), wherein it was concluded that club expenses incurred were aimed at promoting its business interests by facilitating networking and enhancing the social status of its directors. While there were incidental personal benefits to the directors from club amenities, such as relaxation and social status, these benefits were secondary to the primary pu…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…ther the fact that the tax auditor has\nnot qualified the report substantiates the fact that the said expenses were not\nincurred for personal use.\n12.2 Therefore, considering the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case\nof CIT vs Sundaram Industries (240 ITR 335), wherein it was concluded that\nclub expenses incurred were aimed at promoting its business interests by\nfacilitating networking and enhancing the social status of its directors. While\nthere were incidental personal benefits to the directors from club amenities,\nsuch as relaxation and social status, these benefits were secondary to the\nprima…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…ther the fact that the tax auditor has\nnot qualified the report substantiates the fact that the said expenses were not\nincurred for personal use.\n12.2 Therefore, considering the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case\nof CIT vs Sundaram Industries (240 ITR 335), wherein it was concluded that\nclub expenses incurred were aimed at promoting its business interests by\nfacilitating networking and enhancing the social status of its directors. While\nthere were incidental personal benefits to the directors from club amenities,\nsuch as relaxation and social status, these benefits were secondary to the\nprima…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4446/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Mumbai M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…owed the claim of club entrance fees by treating the same as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act after relying upon the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Nestle India Ltd. (296 ITR 682 (Del) ii. Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (209 ITR 649)(Guj) iii. DCIT vs America Securities India (P) Ltd. (136 TTJ 441) 23. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record on this issue. Before us, the ld. Counsel has also referred the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Swiss Re Services India (P) Ltd. (2023) 156 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) on the proposition that club en…

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3714/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Mumbai M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…owed the claim of club entrance fees by treating the same as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act after relying upon the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Nestle India Ltd. (296 ITR 682 (Del) ii. Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (209 ITR 649)(Guj) iii. DCIT vs America Securities India (P) Ltd. (136 TTJ 441) 23. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record on this issue. Before us, the ld. Counsel has also referred the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Swiss Re Services India (P) Ltd. (2023) 156 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay) on the proposition that club en…

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

…the case of PCIT Vs. Bayer Vapi (P.) Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 395 (Gujarat). The relevant paragraph is duly inserted as below:- “4.4 The Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State Export Corpn Lad [1995] 80 Taxman 568/[1994] 209 ITR 649, wherein the payment of fees to the Sports Club of Gujarat Limited has been examined and it was held that if the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefits of the business, it is properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital expenditure However, if it is made for…

SHILPA STEEL & POWER LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals for the A

ITA 160/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe

Section 17Section 37

…ted the submission as buttressed before the lower authorities. She referred to various judgments which are given below:- i) M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.798/Chd./2019, order dated 23/09/2020; ii) CIT v/s Sundaram Industries Ltd., [1999] 240 ITR 335 (Mad.); iii) Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2034/Kol./2013, order dated 18/05/2016; iv) CIT v/s United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2012] 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC); v) Clariant Chemicals India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2015] 53 taxmann.com 39 (Mum.); vi) ACIT v/s M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1084/Mum./2011, etc., order dated 17/04/2015…

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

…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. Infosys Technologies Ltd.: 205 Taxman 59 (Kar) • Assam Brook Ltd. v CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal) • DCIT v. Max India Ltd (2007) 112 TTJ (Asr.) 726 (Bom); • American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR 601. The Ld. AR further submitted that the aforesai…

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT(OSD) , CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…Mills Limited vs DCIT (I.T.A. No.l27/Kol/2021) Date of order: 26-10-2021; Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. -vs- CIT (1992) 195 ITR 682 (Bom); Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. -vs- CIT (1994) 209 ITR 649 (Gujarat); CIT -vs.- Sundaram Industries Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 335 (Mad). 6. As far as the expenditure incurred on services are concerned, whether they can be termed as expenditure in personal nature or not. It is to be appreciated that a Company is a juridical person and there is no element of personal nature in such a character of a taxable entity. Hence nothing can be disallowed out of Club Expenses. We allo…

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…Mills Limited vs DCIT (I.T.A. No.l27/Kol/2021) Date of order: 26-10-2021; Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. -vs- CIT (1992) 195 ITR 682 (Bom); Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. -vs- CIT (1994) 209 ITR 649 (Gujarat); CIT -vs.- Sundaram Industries Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 335 (Mad). 6. As far as the expenditure incurred on services are concerned, whether they can be termed as expenditure in personal nature or not. It is to be appreciated that a Company is a juridical person and there is no element of personal nature in such a character of a taxable entity. Hence nothing can be disallowed out of Club Expenses. We allo…

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao

…mean that the same is not allowable as a deduction for which he relied on Kedarnath Jute Mgs. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 Kedarnath Jute Mgs. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 Kedarnath Jute Mgs. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 335 United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 335 United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 335 (SC). He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble . He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble . He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Metal Box Compan…

MEHRA AND SISTANI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ao & Also Before The Ld. Cit(A), Contending That The Expenses Were Incurred Exclusively

…as decided in favour of the assessee: (i) CIT vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. 180 taxmann.com 82 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. 296 ITR 682 (Del) (iv) CIT vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd., 240 ITR 335 (Mad) (v) DCIT vs. Deloittee Touche Tohmatsu in ITA No.3017/Mum/2016 (Mum-Trib.) order dated 27/04/2018 (A.1.1) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents in the cases of CIT vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC); CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. 180 taxmann.com 82 (Del); CIT vs. Page 3 of 6 ITA No.199 /Del/2021 Mehra…

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

…se of CIT vs. Sanitel Color Ltd. and CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (supra)………….” (C.1) The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sundaram Industries Ltd. 240 ITR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal &…

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

…se of CIT vs. Sanitel Color Ltd. and CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (supra)………….” (C.1) The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 425 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sundaram Industries Ltd. 240 ITR 335 (Madras) • CIT vs Nestle India Limited [2008] 296 ITR 682 (Delhi) Page 5 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) • Sasoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons vs CIT 108 ITR 358 (SC) • CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal &…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3