TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not cease to exist in respect of receipts from members by an Association beyond the quantum restricted by any law regulating the relationship between members and its Association. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we do not find any merit in this appeal by the revenue and the same is dismissed. - ITA No. 1610/MUM/2010 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2011 - N. V. Vasudevan (Judicial Member) And T. R. Sood (Accountant Member) For the Petitioner : M. R. Kubal For the Respondent: B. V. Jhaveri ORDER N. V. Vasudevan (Judicial Member) This is an appeal b the revenue against the order dated 8/12/2009 of CIT(A)-27, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2005-06. The grounds of appeal of the revenue read as follows: 1.The ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... society at ₹ 16,10,760/-. The AO, held the following incomes of the society as not exempt from tax and consequently added them to the income of the assessee. 1. Contribution to heavy repair fund ₹ 15,00,000/- 2. Non-self occupancy charges ₹ 1,30,764/- 3. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sindh Co-operative Housing Society(Infra) and Shyam CHS(Infra) Suprabhat CHS(Infra) as well as the decision in the case of Mittal Court CHS(Infra) held that neither the transfer charges (which in the present case is collected in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was utilized for the repairs of the property and common benefits to its members. On appeal contending that the Tribunal overlooked the principle while holding that contribution by the transferee would not attract the principle of mutuality the following question of law was raised before the Hon'ble High Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of transfer fees received by the assessee-societies-whether from outgoing or incoming members-is not liable to tax on the ground of mutuality ? The Hon'ble Court held as follows: (i) that whether the fee was voluntary or not would make no difference to the principle of mutuality. Payments were made under the bye-laws of the assessee which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciety Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.1972 of 2009 order dated 1-10-2009 as well as Shyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 92 of 2008, 93 of 2008 and ITA No.206 of 2008, order dated 17.7.2009, the above principles were reiterated. In Mittal Court Premises Co-op Society vs. ITO 320 ITR 414, the Bombay High Court held that non-occupation charges paid by a member to a commercial co-op society was covered by the principle of mutuality and so was not chargeable to tax. In the last paragraph of the judgement, the Court held that even if the charges were in excess of the limits imposed by the notification issued by the Government, still the principles of mutuality would apply. The relevant observations of the Court in this regard were as fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
