9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-club is a 'mutual concern'. 2. Whether the income derived by the assessee club from its house property let to its members and their guests is chargeable to tax. 3. Whether the income derived by the assessee club from the sale of liquor, etc., to its members and their guests is taxable. Summary: Issue 1: Mutual Concern The Tribunal held that the assessee-club is a 'mutual concern'. The assessee, Ranchi Club Limited, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and limited by guarantee. The memorandum of association indicates that its main object is to provide a club house and other conveniences for its members and their friends. The articles of association create classes of members including temporary members, honorary members, lady members, and patrons, but only permanent members are deemed to be members of the company. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of mutuality, which was previously upheld in the case of Bankipur Club Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 787 (Patna). Issue 2: Income from House Property The Tribunal held that the income derived by the assessee club from its house property let to its members and their guests is not chargeable to tax. The assessee had filed its return showing income under the head "House property" from persons other than members. The Income-tax Officer included the amount received from members as well. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted these additions, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal's view was that the receipts from members and their guests cannot be subjected to assessment. Issue 3: Income from Sale of Liquor The Tribunal held that the income derived by the assessee club from the sale of liquor, etc., to its members and their guests is not taxable. This decision was consistent with the principle of mutuality, which exempts surplus receipts from members over expenses from being considered as income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set in Bankipur Club Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 787 (Patna), where it was held that transactions with members do not constitute a commercial activity. Comprehensive Details: Principle of Mutuality: The principle of mutuality is based on the premise that no person can make a profit out of himself. For a club to claim exemption under this principle, the contributors to the common fund and the participators in the surplus must be an identical body. The court referred to CIT v. Merchant Navy Club [1974] 96 ITR 261, which summarized the principle of mutuality, emphasizing that the surplus from transactions with members is not assessable to tax if it is to be refunded to the members. Transactions with Non-Members: The court clarified that the principle of mutuality does not apply to transactions with non-members. If a club indulges in both mutual and non-mutual activities, it can still claim exemption for mutual activities. This was supported by cases like CIT v. Madras Race Club [1976] 105 ITR 433 (Mad) and Carlisle and Silloth Golf Club v. Smith [1912] 6 TC 48 (KB). Temporary Members: The court held that temporary members are not considered members of the club for the purpose of mutuality. They do not contribute to the assets of the company, guarantee its debts, or participate in its management. Therefore, transactions with temporary members do not qualify for exemption under the principle of mutuality. Conclusion: The court overruled the decision in Ranchi Club's case [1987] 168 ITR 120 (Patna) and held that the assessee-club can claim exemption on the principle of mutuality for transactions with its members. The court answered all three questions in the affirmative and against the Department, emphasizing that the principle of mutuality applies to transactions with members, but not with non-members or temporary members.
|
