Home ›

Search Results For: mutuality

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 24, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 24, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on principles of mutuality reiterated. The doctrine of mutuality bestows a special status to qualify for exemption from tax liability. It is a settled proposition of law that exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation. If the assessee fails to fulfil the stipulations and to prove the existence of mutuality, the question of extending exemption from tax liability to the assessee, that too at the cost of public exchequer, does not arise. Taking any other view would entail in stretching the limits of construction.

On cogitating over the rival submissions, we reckon that the following questions of law would arise for our consideration in the present case: (i) Whether the assessee company would qualify as a mutual concern in the eyes of law, thereby exempting subject transactions from tax liability? (ii) Whether the excess of income over expenditure in the hands of the assessee company is not taxable?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Doctrine of mutuality: A club registered as a 'company' u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place. Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members. The ratio decidendi in Bacha F. Guzdar 27 ITR 1 does not apply to such clubs. When a club supplies goods to its members, there is no "sale" and sales-tax cannot be levied (Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC), Venkatesh Premises Coop Soc 402 ITR 670 (SC) & other imp judgements referred)

if persons carry on a certain activity in such a way that there is a commonality between contributors of funds and participators in the activity, a complete identity between the two is then established. This identity is not snapped because the surplus that arises from the common fund is not distributed among the members – it is enough that there is a 44 right of disposal over the surplus, and in exercise of that right they may agree that on winding up, the surplus will be transferred to a club or association with similar activities. Most importantly, the surplus that is made does not come back to the members of the club as shareholders of a company in the form of dividends upon their shares. Since the members perform the activities of the club for themselves, the fact that they incorporate a legal entity to do it for them makes no difference.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 31, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A co-operative housing Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from its members. Transfer fees cannot be charged under the pretext of "voluntary donation". Amount which is accepted above permissible limits towards transfer fee is illegal and taxable as income in the hands of the society

The Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from the members and if such amount is earned, then it is taxable under the law. There is no bar for any member to pay donation to the Society, however, it should be voluntary without any compulsion and coercion. No manner the transfer fees can be charged under the pretext of donation

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Principles of Mutuality: Receipts by housing co­-operative societies such as non­-occupancy charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other charges from their members are exempt from income-tax based on the doctrine of mutuality. The fact that the receipts are in excess of the limits prescribed by the State Government does not mean that the Societies have rendered services for profit attracting an element of commerciality and thus was taxable

Transfer charges are payable by the outgoing member. If for convenience, part of it is paid by the transferee, it would not partake the nature of profit or commerciality as the amount is appropriated only after the transferee is inducted as a member. In the event of non­ admission, the amount is returned. The moment the transferee is inducted as a member the principles of mutuality apply. Likewise, non­occupancy charges are levied by the society and is payable by a member who does not himself occupy the premises but lets it out to a third person. The charges are again utilised only for the common benefit of facilities and amenities to the members. Contribution to the common amenity fund taken from a member disposing property is similarly utilised for meeting sudden and regular heavy repairs to ensure continuous and proper hazard free maintenance of the properties of the society which ultimately enures to the enjoyment, benefit and safety of the members. These charges are levied on the basis of resolutions passed by the society and in consonance with its bye­laws. The receipts in the present cases have indisputably been used for mutual benefit towards maintenance of the premises, repairs, infrastructure and provision of common amenities

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Principles of mutuality: Entire law on whether a club whose membership is also open to the persons from the public and whose management is looked after by officials of HUDA is eligible to claim the benefits of "mutuality" explained in the light of Banglore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) and other judgements

There can not be said to be straight jacket formula to say that in every a mutual concern the members must be entitled to a share in the surplus. In the aforesaid case laws as discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banglore Club’s case (supra), if the scheme or the mechanism of functioning of a mutual organization is so devised that a taint of commerciality is involved, the income of the organization can be subjected to tax. As observed by the hon’ble supreme court, it is difficult and vexed question as to at what point of time the relationship of mutually ends and that of trading begins. Since the affairs of the assessee trust are controlled by the serving officers of HUDA, hence it has to pass through greater scrutiny as the chances of it crossing the thin line between the mutuality and commerciality are very high

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 8, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 16, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80P Test of Mutuality: An assessee cannot be treated as a co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members if it has carved out a category called ‘nominal members’. These are those members who are making deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in the real sense. Most of the business of the assessee was with this category of persons who have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits is utilised to advance gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. It is found that the depositors and borrowers are quite distinct. In reality, such activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society

It is pointed out by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is catering to two distinct categories of people. The first category is that of resident members or ordinary members. There may not be any difficulty as far as this category is concerned. However, the assessee had carved out another category of ‘nominal members’. These are those members who are making deposits with the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in real sense. Most of the business of the appellant was with this second category of persons who have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with a motive to earn maximum returns. A portion of these deposits is utilised to advance gold loans, etc. to the members of the first category. It is found, as a matter of fact, that the depositors and borrowers are quiet distinct. In reality, such activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society. It is also found that the appellant is engaged in the activity of granting loans to general public as well. All this is done without any approval from the Registrar of the Societies. With indulgence in such kind of activity by the appellant, it is remarked by the Assessing Officer that the activity of the appellant is in violation of the Co-operative Societies Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Refundable deposits received by a housing company for allotment of flats and future maintenance is business income. However, share capital received for allotment of flats is a capital receipt and not income. The principles of mutuality does not apply to such transactions

The Karnataka High Court held, following Shree Nirmal Commercial vs. CIT 193 ITR 694 (Bom) and 213 ITR 361 (FB), that share capital and refundable deposits received by a housing company from its shareholders in consideration of allotting area to them is assessable as business profits. It was also held that the principles of mutuality are not applicable. It was also held that deposits received from the shareholders for future maintenance is assessable as business income. On appeal to the Supreme Court HELD

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Order of the Tribunal in refusing to follow judgement of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case (holding that transfer fees and TDR premium received by a cooperative society is not taxable on principles of mutuality) without giving reasons is not justified and is breach of principles of judicial discipline

We are of the view that when an identical issue, which had earlier arisen before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on identical facts and a view has been taken on the issue then judicial discipline would demand that a subsequent bench of the Tribunal hearing the same issue should follow the view taken by its earlier Coordinate Bench. No doubt this discipline is subject to the well settled exceptions of the earlier order being passed per incurim or sub silentio or in the meantime, there has been any change in law, either statutory or by virtue of judicial pronouncement. If the earlier order does not fall within the exception which affects its binding character before a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, then it has to follow it. However, if the Tribunal has a view different then the view taken by its Coordinate Bench on an identical issue, then the order taking such a different view must record its reasons as to why it does not follow the earlier order of the Tribunal on an identical issue, which could only be on one of the well settled exceptions which affect the binding nature of the earlier order. It could also depart from the earlier view of the Tribunal if there is difference in facts from the earlier order of Coordinate Bench but the same must be recorded in the order. The impugned order is blissfully silent about the reason why it chooses to ignore the earlier decision of the Tribunal rendered after consideration of Sind Co. Op. Hsg. Society (supra), and take a view contrary to that taken by its earlier Coordinate Bench

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Concept of mutuality in the light of Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) explained

The contributions made by the members to the assessee cannot be a subject matter of tax merely because the part of its excess of income over expenditure is invested in mutual funds. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the dividend received from mutual funds have not been offered to tax by the assessee. The concept of Mutual concerns not being subject to tax is based on the principle of no man can profit out of itself. Therefore the test to be satisfied before an association can be classified as a Mutual concern are complete identity between the members i.e. contributors and the participants, the action of the mutual concern must be in furtherance of its objectives and there must be no scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund. These tests have in fact been reiterated in Bangalore Club v/s. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC)

Read more ›

Posted on by ksalegal
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mutuality - TDR Premium

The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) & A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) and held that TDR Premium received by Society from its members was not covered by principle of Mutuality. The Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 reversed the order of Learned CIT(A) and held that TDR premium will be covered by the principle of mutuality. Hence, ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) and A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) in case of Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society is no longer good law.

Read more ›