9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Whether exemption should be allowed to interest income and rental income on the basis of the principle of mutuality or should it be assessed as income from other sources. 2. Whether the objection to the applicability of the principle of mutuality has been addressed by the amendment in the constitution of the Federation. Issue 1: Exemption of Interest and Rental Income The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee exemption based on the principle of mutuality for interest income and rental income. The CIT(A) had allowed interest income of Rs. 7,75,813 and rental income of Rs. 2,41,414 as business income instead of income from other sources. The assessee, in the Cross Objection, challenged the addition of Rs. 38,200 from the total rental income arising from the rest house. The CIT(A) also disallowed the provision made for research and development expenses. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the applicability of the principle of mutuality and the exemption of various income items. Issue 2: Applicability of Principle of Mutuality The assessee claimed to be a mutual association with cooperative societies as members. An amendment in the Federation's constitution was made in March 2011, allowing distribution of surplus assets among institutional members in case of liquidation. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the issues afresh in light of this amendment to determine if the principle of mutuality applies. The AO was instructed to pass a reasoned order after considering the new development and giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard. The Revenue contended that the amendment in the constitution should only be applied prospectively, citing a Madras High Court decision. They argued that mutuality does not automatically exempt all activities, as seen in a Bombay High Court case. The Karnataka High Court's judgment on taxing income from deposits in mutual concerns was also referenced. The Tribunal decided to keep all issues open for the AO to decide after determining the applicability of the principle of mutuality to the assessee. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection were allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment addressed the issues of exemption of interest and rental income based on the principle of mutuality, as well as the applicability of the principle of mutuality to the assessee's status as a mutual association. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider these matters in light of an amendment in the Federation's constitution, allowing for the distribution of surplus assets among institutional members in case of liquidation. The decision highlighted the need for a fresh assessment by the AO to determine the exemption status of various income items claimed by the assessee.
|
