TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occupancy charges are covered by the principle of mutuality and is not chargeable to tax. This is precisely what the impugned order has done. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 85 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr A R Malhotra Mr N A Kazi, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Ashok Patil, Adv. JUDGMENT P.C. 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') assails the order dated 8th June 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') holding that the amount received for the transfer fees and non occupancy charges are not chargeable to tax in the hands of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts specified in the Cirucular of State Government, has to be brought to tax. It is submitted that the decision of this Court in Sind Co-operative Housing Society (supra) also observes if an amount received is more, than what is chargeable under bylaws, the society is bound to repay the same, failing which same is assessable to tax. Besides it was submitted that on identical issue with regard to the transfer fees even this Court has admitted two appeals viz. Income Tax Appeal No. 4918/2010 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Samudra Mahal Premises Coop. Housing Society Ltd. on 14th June 2012 and Income Tax Appeal Nos. 423/2012, 478/2012 and 500/2012 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Panchratna Coop. Housing Soceity Ltd. on 18th February 2013. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer fees or the quantum thereof, in this case the principle of mutuality cannot be applied. The underlying principle and of a cooperative movement has been completely overlooked by the Counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue seems to be of the view that a Cooperative Housing Society makes profit, if it receives something beyond this amount of ₹ 25,000/-. There has to be material brought and which will have a definite bearing on this issue. If the amount is received on account of transfer of a flat and which is not restricted to ₹ 25,000/- but much more, then different consideration may apply. However, in the present case, what has been argued and vehemently is the amount was received by the Society when the flat and the garage we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have received nothing but transfer fees and it is that underlying presumption which has prevailed upon the Assessing Officer to take a particular view. 12. We find that the Assessing Officer has been therefore, rightly corrected by the Commissioner. Without any material, cogent and satisfactory, being produced, the sum and in its entirety as credited could not be assumed to be transfer fees. The receipt thereof may have been occasioned by the transfer of the flat and garage. 8. In this case also, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the respondent had received more amounts than allowed/permitted in the State Government Circular dated 9th August 2001. Further in the respondent-assessee's own case, this Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
