Held principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on fixed deposits made by assessee clubs in banks irrespective whether banks are corporate members of club or not; thus, interest income earned on fixed deposits made in banks by appellant clubs had to be treated like any other income from other sources within meaning of section 2(24).If any income is earned by clubs through its assets and resources, from persons who are not members of clubs, such income would also not be covered under principle of mutuality and would be liable to be taxed under provisions of Income-tax Act. Followed, Bangalore Club v. CIT (2013) 212 taxman 566/ 350 ITR 509 (SC). It is a settled position of law that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding as a precedent. The legal principles guiding the decision in a case are the basis for a binding precedent for a subsequent case, apart from being a decision which binds the parties to the case. Therefore, while applying a decision to a later case, the court dealing with it has to carefully ascertain the principle laid down in the previous decision. A decision in a case takes its flavour from the facts of the case and the question of law involved and decided. However, a decision which is not express and is neither founded on any reason nor proceeds on a consideration of the issue cannot be deemed to be law declared, so as to have a binding effect as is contemplated under article 141.