| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
October 11, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Non-occupancy charges are exempt on ground of mutuality even if in excess of limits
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.
Though the judgement is reported in 320 ITR 414, the said last paragraph has been omitted to be printed therein. The said last paragraph reads as follows:
“Apart from that even assuming that these Government Notifications were applicable if the society could not have charged excess amount it will have to be refunded to the members. A member is not prohibited from gifting any amount to the society for the objects of the society. The principle of mutuality would not cease on account of these aspect. At the highest, authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules if any action is taken may direct an additional amount to be refunded. In our opinion, therefore, contribution by way of non occupancy charges, principle of mutuality would apply and consequently,”
Note: In
Sind Co-operative Housing Society vs. ITO 317 ITR 47 (Bom) it was held that if any amount has been received
beyond the amount notified by the Government, the principle of mutuality would
not apply to that amount.
Related Posts:
- Little Angels Education Society vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the CBDT vide Circular No.2 / 2020 or by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 19.02.2020. Fixing a period of one year’s delay i.e., 365 days of delay for condonation of delay in filing Form…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
- PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd (Bombay High Court) In view of the second proviso to Section 153A(1) of the said Act, once assessment gets abated, it is open for the assessee to lodge a new claim in a proceeding under Section 153A(1) which was not claimed in his regular return of income, because assessment was never made/finalised in…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
Leave a Reply