Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 250 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Claim of section 11 exemption without section 12A registration after its conversion to a section 25 companies - mutuality principle application - Held that:- There is no quarrel between that the assessee has raised its mutuality plea qua members contributions only as collected by organizing gala dinners, property shows and cricket tournaments. Shri Rajdeep Singh fails to rebut the factual position that all these events are in the nature of annual get together being organized for the purpose of promoting brotherhood. Nor is it his case that the relevant figures in this records point out losses really from these activities as evident in assessment year 2006-07. We notice from our order that we had considered case law of Bangalore Club vs. CIT (2013 (1) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT ) propounding three essential conditions that there has to be a complete identity between the class of contributors and participators leaving the particular level or form by which a mutual association is known to be insignificant, the activities concerned should be in furtherance to mandate of the association and there should not be any scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund made by them which could only be expanded or retuned to themselves. We deem it appropriate to observe that our order under challenge does not deal with the above stated third aspect of mutuality. As extracted clause reveals that assessee has to make and create from its members contributions a fund for above purposes. It is nowhere stipulated therein that these purposes would form the sole object for collection of funds from members whereas we interpreted the same on these lines only. We reiterate that the assessee has rather suffered losses in organizing the impugned fiestas negating possibility of having organized the same on commercial lines. Its purpose for having organized the activities as stated in the case records are annual get togethers for promoting brotherhood between members only. We observe in these peculiar facts that our appreciation of this clause is not as per the language incorporated in the relevant object clause. We admit our two findings hereinabove to be suffering from mistakes apparent on the face of record in view of all this detailed discussion. There is further no denial of the fact that our order does not deal with third aspect of mutuality principle ROM application allowed
|