United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata
Appeal is partly allowed in above terms
ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.
For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)
…arat Expressway Ltd. (2015) 154 ITD 103 (Mumbai-Trib) allows similar instance of expenses of authorized share capital as amortizable falling under extension of the undertaking” only. Learned coordinate bench has also considered EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras). We conclude in the foregoing factual and legal position that the assessee’s case comes u/s 35D(2)(ii) since in connection with extension of its undertaking only as evident from assessee’s foregoing factual details. The CIT(A)’s identical findings under challenge deleting impugned identical section 35D disallowance of Rs.120,00,000/- in…
