TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the impugned addition of rental income. Restore service fee addition received from the very payee - Held that:- We sought to know the exact nature of services provided by the tax payer. It emerges from the CIT(A)’s order in para-5.2 that the service charges in question have been received in respect of the very let out premises. We thus are of the view that the assessee is not entitled for the above mutuality benefit qua instant service fee received as well. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground as well as the impugned appeal is accepted accordingly. - ITA No.837 /Kol/2015, ITA No.2377/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, JM And Shri M.Balaganesh, AM For the Assessee : Ms. Sana Javed, CA For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance Industries Ltd. 3. The Revenue s grievance before us is that Assessing Officer had rightly treated the impugned rental income as well as service fee to be not covered under mutuality principle. The assessing authority had quoted hon ble apex court s decision in Bangalore Club vs CIT [2013] 350 ITR 509 (SC) settling the law that there are three conditions to be satisfied in case an assessee claims itself to be covered under mutuality principle. They are (i) there has to be complete identity between the contributors and the participants (ii) their action(s) must be in furtherance of mutual mandate and also that there should not be any scope of profiteering by the contributor from a fund made by them which can be expended or ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of its business. Learned coordinate bench thus concludes that assessee s identical income received from the said payee is to be assessed as income from house property than that covered under mutuality principle. No distinction of facts or law is forthcoming in case records. We accept Revenue s arguments as well as its former substantive ground seeking to revive the impugned addition of rental income to the tune of ₹ 55,87,395/-. 6. Coming to the Revenue s next ground seeking to restore service fee addition of ₹ 40,88,325/- received from the very payee, we sought to know the exact nature of services provided by the tax payer. It emerges from the CIT(A) s order in para-5.2 that the service charges in question ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
