9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the Revenue's appeal ITA No.2999/M/2012 and the grounds raised in this appeal read as under: "a) Whether on the facts, circumstances and in laws, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the share transfer fees of Rs. 30,00,000/- received by the assessee company, on transfer of flats, as exempt from income tax, on principle of mutuality? b) Whether on the facts, circumstances and in the law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the nominee occupancy charges of Rs. 24,25,000/- received by the assessee from its non-members (tenants) are covered by the concept of mutuality. c) Whether on the facts, circumstances and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. In one of such orders passed for the immediately preceding AY i.e., 2007-2008, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 21.10.2011 passed in ITA No. 6381/M/2010 has held that transfer fees received by the company being a mutual concern, whether from out coming or incoming members is not liable to tax because of principle of mutuality. The Tribunal also held that the refundable SD having been collected by the assessee company from its members are also exempt from tax as the principles of mutuality are clearly applicable to the said charges. As regard the nominee occupancy charges, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mittal Court Premises Cooperative Society Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion raised by the assessee on 20.5.2013, is against the order of the CIT (A)-9, Mumbai dated 6.2.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this Cross Objection, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The ITO-5(1)(4), Mumbai erred in stating that the nominee occupancy charges are received from non-members. 2. Your respondents submits that the CIT (A)-9 erred in including in the total income, the interest income of Rs. 29,40,721/-." 8. Ground no.1 relates to the nominee occupancy charges received from nonmembers. This ground is exactly similar to that of ground no.2 raised by the Revenue and the same is adjudicated by us in the above para 5 of this order, wherein the said issue was decided in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies as well as the cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra). On perusal of the said judgment of the Apex Court, we find that the said judgment is relevant in this regard, wherein it was held that "The principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself. The concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled by the group, for a common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue the common purpose is said to be simply an increase of the common fund and as such neither considered income nor taxable". Considering the same, we remit the issue to the files of the AO to adjudicate the same afresh in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
