TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. In response to this appeal, assessee has filed cross-objection, wherein following grounds have been taken : "The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) presents this cross-objection against the same on the following amongst other grounds. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in not allowing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income. It be so held now and the addition be deleted. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred both in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer disallowing Rs. 4,82,930 being payment of gratuity by not appreciating the submission, reproduced at paragraph 8.3 of his order. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have directed that the payment of gratuity paid before due date of filing return be allowed. It be so held. Alternatively, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to allow the same on payment basis in the year of payment. It be so held now and the same be now directed as prayed. 5. The assessee craves lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of the assessee and deleted the addition. The relevant part of the order of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) as contained in paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 are as under : "9.3 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the learned authorised representative carefully. It is seen that the similar additions made in the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97 have been deleted by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated February 28, 2006 in I. T. A. Nos. 1060/Ahd/1999, 2681 and 2683/Ahd/2000. Further, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, following the same decision deleted the similar addition in the assessment year 1994-95 in I. T. A. No. 2682/Ahd/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the said case the objects of the assessee-company included, inter alia, the right to purchase or to obtain land or lease from the Government and to build and construct houses. In pursuance of the objects, the company obtained a lease of a piece of land belonging to the Government of Maharashtra with the intention of constructing a building or buildings which could be used as commercial premises. In order to raise finances for the construction, the company devised a scheme. Under the scheme, the shareholders of the company were to enter into a standard form of agreement with the assessee-company which would confer on them the right of occupation of specified floor space in the building, either by themselves or by their nominees. As per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ementioned decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Diners Business Services P. Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 1, as in the said case, the entrance fee was charged by the assessee for enrolment of its customers as members of `executive centre'. The entrance fee was a one-time fee and only members were eligible to avail of the facilities available in the `executive centre' and the entrance fee was non-refundable, following the decision in the case of CIT v. W. I. A. A. Club Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 569 (Bom), it is held by the Bombay High Court that the entrance fees were paid to the club in order to acquire the right to avail of the services and facilities extended by the club and therefore, the receipts constituted capital receipts.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point out that the original return was filed in time, we uphold the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard. Thus, ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised in the cross-objection by the assessee are rejected. Ground No. 1 relates to allowing the claim of Rs. 5,25,000 being onefifth of the total expenditure incurred by the assessee at Rs. 26,25,000 on repairs and renewal of marriage hall in earlier years. It had claimed onefifth of such an expenditure this year. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed the claim on the ground that it pertained to earlier years and, therefore, could not be allowed in the current year. The learned authorised representative of the assessee pointed out that in the ear....