{"id":13080,"date":"2016-03-29T17:10:18","date_gmt":"2016-03-29T11:40:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=13080"},"modified":"2016-03-29T17:10:18","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T11:40:18","slug":"hatkesh-co-op-hsg-society-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/hatkesh-co-op-hsg-society-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai\/","title":{"rendered":"Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499\/M\/2011) &amp; 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. <\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499\/M\/2011) &amp; 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.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/hatkesh-co-op-hsg-society-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":61,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal","judges-rajendra-am","judges-ram-lal-negi-jm","section-63","counsel-rahul-hakani","court-itat-mumbai","catchwords-mutuality","catchwords-mutuality-tdr-premium","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/61"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}