9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 511 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of income - correct computation of income - treat 60% of advance membership fee received as income instead of entire advance membership as income treated by AO - Held that - A reasonable and fair estimate under these circumstances has to be made based on reasonable scientific method keeping in view business matrix and model of the assessee after study of the by-laws, rules and regulations governing the assessees club , memorandum and articles of association, terms and conditions for the grant of membership , terms and conditions under which advance membership fee was received by the assessee, conditions for refund of membership fee, empirical experiences and a scientific working , which need to be carried out keeping in view peculiar business model and matrix of the assessee and also with respect of the assessees club. We are , therefore, inclined to set aside and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de-novo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law to work out spread/rollover of advance membership fee collected for a period of 25 years spread over period of time based on reasonable scientific method keeping in view business matrix and model of the assessee worked out after study of the above parameters as cited by us and also of any other relevant parameter having impact and bearing on computation of correct income of the assessee chargeable to tax. Our decision is in consonance with the recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Seagram Distilleries Private Limited (now Pernod Ricard India Limited) v. CIT-III,(2016 (7) TMI 1235 - SUPREME COURT). Appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of Advance Membership Fees as Income. 2. Classification of Non-Refundable One-Time Entrance Fee as Capital or Revenue Receipt. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Advance Membership Fees as Income: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat 60% of the advance membership fees received as income instead of the entire amount. The Revenue argued that the entire advance membership fee should be treated as income in the year of receipt. The CIT(A), however, relied on the Special Bench decision in the case of Mahendra Holidays and Resorts Limited, which suggested that only a portion of the advance membership fee should be taxed in the year of receipt, considering the need to maintain facilities in subsequent years. The Tribunal observed that the assessee received a substantial amount as advance membership fee for 25 years and also collected annual charges and fees for various amenities. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the concept of matching principles should apply, meaning revenue and expenses should be matched over the period during which the services are rendered. The Tribunal noted that taxing the entire advance fee in the year of receipt would result in disproportionately high income initially and potential losses in subsequent years as the assessee would still need to maintain facilities without corresponding revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable and fair estimate based on a scientific method, considering the business model and matrix of the assessee. It directed the AO to re-examine the issue and determine the appropriate spread of the advance membership fee over the relevant period, ensuring a correct computation of income. The Tribunal's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Seagram Distilleries Private Limited, which supports the spread-over approach for such advance receipts. 2. Classification of Non-Refundable One-Time Entrance Fee as Capital or Revenue Receipt: The second issue concerns whether the non-refundable one-time entrance fee should be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) treated this fee as a capital receipt, while the AO considered it a revenue receipt. The Tribunal reviewed the earlier Tribunal order for the assessee's case for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09, which had set aside a similar issue to the AO. The Tribunal observed that the non-refundable entrance fee has a close nexus to the specific services provided by the club to its members. It concluded that such fees are revenue receipts exigible to tax, as they are related to the services rendered by the club upon obtaining membership. The Tribunal cited several case laws, including the Bombay High Court's decision in WIAA Club Limited and the Supreme Court's ruling in Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited, which support the classification of non-refundable entrance fees as revenue receipts. These decisions emphasize that the nature of the business and the services provided play a crucial role in determining the taxability of such fees. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the issue of advance membership fees to the AO for a de-novo determination based on a reasonable scientific method, considering the business model and contractual obligations. It upheld the classification of non-refundable one-time entrance fees as revenue receipts exigible to tax. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO was directed to re-examine and compute the income accordingly, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
|
