1994 (10) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of income of a mutual body.
2. Taxability of amounts received from members on allotment of lands by lease.
3. Taxability of amounts received from members on transfer of lands.

Summary:

Issue 1: Taxability of Income of a Mutual Body
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, a cooperative society, can be regarded as a mutual body, and therefore, its income is not liable to tax. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing the principle that no one can make a profit by transacting with oneself. The identity of contributors and recipients, the application of funds for members' benefit, and the principle of mutuality were key factors in this decision. The High Court referenced the principle in Styles' case [1889] 2 TC 460 (HL) and the Supreme Court's acceptance of this principle in CIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 551.

Issue 2: Taxability of Amounts Received from Members on Allotment of Lands by Lease
The Tribunal found that the amount received by the assessee from its members on allotment of lands by lease was not liable to be taxed on the principles of mutuality. The High Court agreed, noting that the society's activities, including the collection of amounts for lease allotments, were part of its mutual operations. The funds collected were applied for the benefit of the members, maintaining the mutuality principle.

Issue 3: Taxability of Amounts Received from Members on Transfer of Lands
The Tribunal concluded that the amount received by the assessee, being 50% of the excess amount from its members on the transfer of lands, was not liable to be taxed as income of the assessee. The High Court upheld this conclusion, stating that the contributions made by members upon transferring their lease were part of the mutual operations of the society. The surplus was used for the benefit of the members, adhering to the mutuality principle.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering all three questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the principle of mutuality and the application of funds for the benefit of the members, concluding that the income in question was not liable to tax.