9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay and park charges, rent from Vodafone Tower, rent from BSNL Tower, rent from Idea Tower and Interest from Fixed Deposit. In the first place the income i.e, pay and park charges, rent from Vodafone Tower, Rent from BSNL Tower, Rent from Idea Tower cannot be considered to be covered by the doctrine of mutuality. With regard to interest on Fixed Deposit also, the doctrine is certainly not at all applicable. In the light of the aforesaid, as the matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income tax [ 2013 (1) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT ] the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. - ITA NO.464/2019 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, it was noticed that during the year the assessee has claimed exemption of ₹ 21,45,804/- on the surplus income after deducting personal expenses declared under the head Income from Other sources. 5. The assessing officer, on examination of the income and expenditure account for the year ending on 31.3.2015 noticed that the assessee has received (i) pay and park charges to the tune of ₹ 1,63,940/-, (ii) Rent from Vodafone Tower ₹ 3,41,055/-, (iii) Interest from Fixed Deposit ₹ 11,15,666/-, (iv) Rent from BSNL Tower ₹ 18,555/- and (v) Rent from Idea Tower ₹ 5,75,059/-, totaling to ₹ 22,14,270/-. Out of this income, the assessee has claimed exempt income on mutuality concept to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r - ₹ 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 judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT (supra) which is followed by the authorities below and also 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 in the course of arguments before me. Regarding the applicabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest 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 interest, but to keep it in the safe custody and it was claimed that such interest income earned from bank is also ultimately used for the ultimate benefit of the members. Hence it is seen that as per the facts of that case, the fund was contributed by the members for providing financial assistance to the members and only surplus fund which were not required for the time being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dismissed. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income tax (supra). 7. This Court while admitting the appeal has framed the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the Impugned Judgment and Order of the Authorities are viti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
