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

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, 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. The Addl CIT RG 1(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…

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

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…

D.C.I.T., Circle 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5792/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Mumbai M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (In respect of M/s. ICICI Ltd. merged with Vs M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.) ICICI Bank Towers Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400051 [PAN: AAACI1195H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Mumbai (In respect of M/s. ICICI Ltd. me…

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5792/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Mumbai M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (In respect of M/s. ICICI Ltd. merged with Vs M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.) ICICI Bank Towers Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400051 [PAN: AAACI1195H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Mumbai (In respect of M/s. ICICI Ltd. me…

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

…t the entrance fees is of capital nature while the respondent contends that it is revenue and should be allowed as expenses. The Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682/60 Taxman 215 holding that the entrance fees for the membership of a club would be considered as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal observed that though the entrance fee would have an enduring benefit; it cannot be considered to be capital in nature as no asset was created. Mr. Vimal Gupta, senior counsel on behalf of the revenue submits that the…

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

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 &

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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. Andh…

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

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 &

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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. Andh…

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaltata International Ltd., Block A, Shivsagar Estates Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018, Pan: Aaact3198F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit – 7(3), R. No. 675, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

…ITAT is as under:- “13. Ground no.2 relates to disallowance out of payment made to club. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is also covered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and decision of various benches of Tribunal in Otis Elevator (195 ITR 682). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee claimed total expenses of Rs. 3,52,200/- out of which, the Assessing Officer allowed Rs. 52,000/- paid to Devas Office and rest of the amount of Rs. 2,99,500/- for subscription fees, annual contribution and membership of various club and other expenses paid on club were disallowed. The ld. CI…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…rdingly payment of entrance fees and subscription made thereon are allowable business expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. Similar propositions were also laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. India Ltd. vs. CIT reported 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 21.4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 43. Since the issue is exactly similar and grounds as well as the facts are also identical, respectfully following the above decision in assessee's own…

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG (1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…the Membership Fees paid to Club is allowable as Business Expenditure. Since the same is incurred to promote business interest. The assessee in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd. (195 ITR 682). The AO, however, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to treat the Membership Fees as capital in nature for the reason that the payment made is towards initial payments for entrance that pertains to several years and therefore, held it as capital expenditure. 65. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…the Membership Fees paid to Club is allowable as Business Expenditure. Since the same is incurred to promote business interest. The assessee in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd. (195 ITR 682). The AO, however, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to treat the Membership Fees as capital in nature for the reason that the payment made is towards initial payments for entrance that pertains to several years and therefore, held it as capital expenditure. 65. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO by…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

…e. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance of INR 5,00,000/-. 6.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the above disallowance of INR 5,00,000/- by following the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevators Co. India Ltd. vs. CIT:195 ITR 682 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the Revenue in the case of the Assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 1989-90 & 1990 1991. 6.3. Being aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. 6.4. Both the sides agreed that similar issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee vide order, dated 29/05/2006, pa…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

…ce of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. Ltd. vs. CIT 195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in…

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

…ce of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. Ltd. vs. CIT 195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in…

DCIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

…ce of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. Ltd. vs. CIT 195 ITR 682 and other decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In so far as disallowance of remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani u/s. 40A(2), the same has been stated that it has been deleted by the Tribunal in A.Y.2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in…