Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
Issues involved:
1. Allowability of Otters Club membership fee as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. 2. Entitlement to higher rate of depreciation on a vehicle registered as a personal vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Issue 1: Otters Club Membership Fee The appellant, an actor, claimed Rs.15,00,000 as entrance fee to Otters Club as revenue expenditure for professional purposes. The assessing officer disallowed the claim stating it could be used for personal purposes. The C.I.T.(A) upheld the disallowance. However, the I.T.A.T. allowed the claim, noting the actor had memberships in two clubs for professional and personal use. Citing the OTIS Elevators Ltd. v. C.I.T. case, the I.T.A.T. held the expenditure for professional purposes was valid, thus dismissing the first question raised by the Revenue. Issue 2: Higher Depreciation on BMW Car The appellant claimed 50% depreciation on a BMW car, but the assessing officer allowed only 20%. The I.T.A.T. allowed the higher rate under rule III(2)(iid) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Revenue argued the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle, hence not eligible for 50% depreciation. However, as per note-3A of Appendix-I, a "commercial vehicle" includes a light motor vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kgs. Since the appellant met all conditions, the I.T.A.T.'s decision to allow 50% depreciation on the BMW car was upheld. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions on both issues.
|