1997 (5) TMI 392 - SC - Income Tax

Receipts for the various facilities extended by the clubs to their members as part of the usual privileges, advantages & conveniences, attached to the membership, cannot be said to be a trading activity - such activities claimed as mutual concern or members club is a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade and the transactions entered into with the members or non-members alike is a trade/business/transaction and the resultant surplus is certainly profit income liable to tax - Decided in favor of assessee - against the revenue

Issues Involved:

1. Taxability of surplus receipts of members' clubs under the principle of mutuality.
2. Whether the surplus receipts from sales to members and letting out property to members are taxable.
3. Application of mutuality principle to different types of receipts (e.g., admission fees, periodical subscriptions).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Surplus Receipts of Members' Clubs:

The core issue across the appeals was whether the surplus receipts of members' clubs from transactions with their members are taxable as income under the Income-tax Act. The respondents, being non-profit companies registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, claimed exemption on their surplus receipts on the ground of mutuality, arguing that they do not carry on any trade or business for profit.

2. Surplus Receipts from Sales to Members and Letting Out Property to Members:

Group A: Bankipur Club Ltd.

The High Court of Patna in CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 787 addressed whether profits from sales to regular members are exempt under the doctrine of mutuality. The court held that the profits from sales of drinks to members were not taxable, as the transactions were not tainted with commerciality and were part of the club's mutual activities.

Group B: Ranchi Club Ltd.

In CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 137 (Patna) [FB], the Patna High Court held that the income derived from house property let to members and from the sale of liquor to members and their guests was not taxable. The court emphasized that the club was a mutual concern and the transactions with members were not commercial in nature.

Group C: Cricket Club of India

For the Cricket Club of India, the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the income from property let to members and the income from club facilities provided to members were exempt under the principle of mutuality. The High Court declined to refer the question of law posed by the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision that such income was not taxable.

Group D: Northern India Motion Pictures Association

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Northern India Motion Pictures Association [1989] 180 ITR 160 held that the receipts under the head "Others" (admission fees, periodical subscriptions) were exempt from tax on the principle of mutuality. The court noted that the contributors retained control over the disposal of the surplus, satisfying the mutuality principle.

3. Application of Mutuality Principle to Different Types of Receipts:

The principle of mutuality requires complete identity between the contributors to the common fund and the participators in the surplus. The courts consistently found that the clubs' activities, such as selling drinks, letting out property, and collecting admission fees from members, were mutual arrangements without profit motives. The surplus was not considered income for tax purposes as it was part of the mutual arrangement.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts' decisions that the surplus receipts from transactions with members were not taxable under the principle of mutuality. The courts found that the clubs' activities were not commercial and were solely for the benefit of their members. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming that the clubs' surplus receipts from mutual transactions were exempt from tax.

Separate Judgments:

The seven appeals involving Cawnpore Club Ltd. were delinked and will be heard separately, as the issues in those cases differed from those in Groups A to D. The primary question in those appeals was whether income from property let out and interest from FDRs and NSCs should be taxed as income from property or other sources, not under the principle of mutuality.

← Previous Next →