9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h relates to the assessment year 2006-07, there are only two grounds. They are as under: - 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 9, Mumbai [ CIT(A) ] erred in upholding the addition of nominee occupancy charges of `3,72,000 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 grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof. It has been observed in the said order that the assessment of the nominee occupancy charges was not justified and in coming to this conclusion the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 184 Taxman 292 (Bom). In this judgment it has been held that the nominee occupancy charges are exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bombay Gymkhana Ltd., in ITA No: 249/Mum/2007, dated 31st October 2007, for the assessment year 2003-04. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, the issue has been decided again in favour of the assessee following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2004-05. We also find reference in this order to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Orienta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
