• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
 

News:

ITAT issues guidelines for stay of demand.

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - bkafca

#1
Kindly try to apply this principles of recent supreme court decision.  Even though the order is in against the assessee it clearly explains the concept of mutuality

M/s Bangalore Club vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

For a receipt to be exempt on the principles of Mutuality, three conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that there must be a complete identity between the contributors and participators. The second is that the actions of the participators and contributors must be in furtherance of the mandate of the association. The third is that there must be no scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund made by them which could only be expended or returned to themselves. On facts, though the interest was earned from banks which were corporate members of the club, it was not exempt on the ground of mutuality because (i) the arrangement lacks a complete identity between the contributors and participators. With the funds of the club, member banks engaged in commercial operations with third parties outside of the mutuality, rupturing the 'privity of mutuality', and consequently, violating the one to one identity between the contributors and participators, (ii) the surplus funds were not used in furtherance of the object of the club but were taken out of mutuality when the member banks placed the same at the disposal of third parties, thus, initiating an independent contract between the bank and the clients of the bank, a third party, not privy to the mutuality & (iii) The Banks generated revenue by paying a lower rate of interest to the assessee-club and loaning the funds to third parties. The interest accrued on the surplus deposited by the club like in the case of any other deposit made by an account holder with the bank. A façade of a club cannot be constructed over commercial transactions to avoid liability to tax. Such setups cannot be permitted to claim double benefit of mutuality.
#2
IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH 'd' (THIRD MEMBER)
Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Surat
v.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Education Society
IT APPEAL NO. 2984 (AHD.) OF 2008
(c.o. no. 223 (ahd.) of 2008)
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01]
Sl. No.(s)   Decision on the case of   Reported in
1.    Sri Dwarkadheesh Charitable Trust v. ITO [1975]   98 ITR 557 (All.)
2.    Sukhdeo Charity Trust v. CIT [1984]   149 ITR 470
3.    CIT v. Billeswara Charitable Trust [1984]   145 ITR 29
4.    CIT v. Bal Utkarsh Society [1979]   119 ITR 137 (Guj.)
5.    CIT v. Eteral Science or Man's Society [1981]   128 ITR 456 (Delhi)

Go through the above case law it will be help full
#3
Discussion / Re: Tax advice required for Joint Home Loan
February 06, 2013, 09:39:09 PM
If you have defined your ownership in the sale deed (Registered document)  then you can claim the deduction on that proportion other wise if it is joint ownership with out any mentioning about proportion you have divide 50:50