9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest on Fixed Deposit. The first four incomes i.e. Pay & Park Charges and rent from Vodafone, BSNL and Idea towers cannot be considered to be covered by doctrine of mutuality. Regarding interest on Fixed Deposit also, this is not the claim of the assessee that the fund which was used for earning such interest income on Fixed Deposit was mainly for the purpose of providing financial assistance to the members and only surplus fund kept with bank for safe custody and not for earning interest income and earning of interest income is incidental. Hence in the facts of present case, this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is also not applicable. Hence in my considered opinion this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in rejecting assessee's appeal, in spite of the case Laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer being distinguished on facts circumstances 3) The learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in rejecting assessee's appeal, despite the applicable case Laws of the H'ble jurisdictional High court and also of another HI)le High Court cited and relied upon by the Assessee 4) On facts of the case, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) rejecting the submission of the assessee and upholding the action of the AO, is not sustainable when no reason for such action is evident from the order, other than to state that 'there are a catena of judgments from various High courts' and 'the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , rent from BSNL tower and rent from Idea Tower are incidental receipts in order to furthering of the objectives of dominant purpose of the assessee AOP and it was also held by him that these incomes are not governed by the concept of mutuality. He further pointed out that while holding so, the CIT(A) has also stated that various decisions relied upon by the AO are supporting him in taking this view. Regarding those decisions which are relied upon by the AO, he drawn my attention to para no. 2.4 on page no. 4 of the assessment order and submitted that the main judgement on which the reliance has been placed by the AO is the judgement of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT as reported in 350 ITR 509. He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO that the assessee has claimed exemption of ₹ 21,45,804/- being the surplus income after deducting personal expenses declared under the head Income from Other Sources. The AO has noted the nature of those incomes which are 1) Pay Park Charges -Rs. 1,63,940/-, 2) Rent from Vodafone Tower ₹ 3,41,055/-, 3) Interest from Fixed Deposit ₹ 11,15,666/-, 4) Rent from BSNL Tower ₹ 18,555/- and 5) Rent from Idea Tower ₹ 5,75,059/- total ₹ 22,14,270/-. Hence it is seen that these incomes are earned by the assessee from outsiders who are not the members of the assessee AOP and hence, neither contributor nor participator in profit. In the light of these facts, now I examine the applicability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicability of the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund Vs. DCIT (supra) on which reliance has been placed by ld. AR of assessee. As per the facts noted in Para 5 of this judgment, it is noted that contributions from the members are used for lending loans to the members and in turn collect interest from the members and as such, the income is exempted from tax on the principle of doctrine of mutuality in terms of Section 4 of the Income Tax Act and in addition to that, this was also claimed in that case that the funds collected by the assessee are used to provide monetary assistance to its members were kept in the bank not with the primary object of earning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) is not applicable in the facts of present case. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find that the judgement of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case and as per this judgement of Hon ble Apex Court, the issue is covered against the assessee and the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund Vs. DCIT (supra) is not applicable in the present case and hence, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT (supra), I decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
