Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT

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

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

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

…t judgments, it was held that club membership fees paid for employees constitute business expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (195 ITR 682), 9 ICICI 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 Cour…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(4),MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. IDBI BANK LTD, PARTH PLAZAMORBI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, TOAP 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCI8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5959/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 IDBI Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistan…

ACIT 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, TOAP 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCI8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5959/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 IDBI Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistan…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…at it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditur…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…at it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…d that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16.2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Decis…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expend…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…at it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditur…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…at it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditur…

DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

…at it is in\nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld.\nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator\nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom).\n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time\npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential\ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such\nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the\nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditu…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

…t is in \nthe nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. \nCIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble \nJurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator \nCompany (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). \n\n16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time \npayment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential \ncondition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such \nannual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the \nassessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…d that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16.2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Deci…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…d that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16.2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Deci…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…d that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Dec…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…d that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16.2. In this respect, we note that though entrance fee is a one-time payment, regular payment of annual subscription is an essential condition for continuance of such club membership. Thus, unless such annual subscription is paid, there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Deci…