9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant is a company. It has acquired plot of land and constructed buildings and flats in these buildings have been given to shareholders. The Appellant Company is responsible for the repair and maintenance and overall management of the buildings. It is collecting transfer fee from intending purchasers at the time of transfer of flat by the shareholders to the intending purchasers. In the current year the Appellant collected ₹ 50,81,942/- on this account. The Appellant is claiming that it is a mutual concern and transfer fee received by it are not taxable under the concept of mutuality. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer held that the Appellant is a company and it can not be a mutual concern. The Assessing Officer wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in issues have been adjudicated by the Tribunal in its earlier order. 6. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the papers on record, as well as the case laws cited before us, we hold as follows:- 7. We first take up Revenue s appeal in ITA no.6381/Mum./2010. Ground no.1, reads as follows:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the Transfer fees of ₹ 50,82,942/- received by the assessee company, on transfer of flats as exempt from income tax, on principle of mutuality which principle applies only to Cooperative Societies and would not apply to corporate entities . 8. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply and it cannot be taxed. Keeping this in view, ground no.2 is also dismissed. 11. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 12. We now take up assessee s appeal in ITA no.6093/Mum./2010. Ground no.1, reads as follows:- 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of nominee occupancy charges of ₹ 9,19,000 received from members, on the ground that the same is not exempt under mutuality. The appellants submit that above nominee occupancy charges are exempt on the ground of mutuality and therefore should not be included in the total income. This issue is covered in favour of the appellant, inter alia, by ITAT order for AY 2005-06. 13. The issue of taxabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
