ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GRAND PARADI CO OP HSG SOC LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7222/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2015AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and found that the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decisions on the principle of mutuality.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 18.50 lakhs received by the assessee as transfer fee. The Revenue argued that this transfer fee was taxable as it was not covered by the principle of mutuality.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer fee received by the assessee, a housing society, is taxable or covered by the principle of mutuality.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Respondent: Shri Mayur R.Makadia
Hearing: 8.10.2015Pronounced: 8.10.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the Revenue preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai dated 23.9.2013 pertaining to Assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 18.50 lakhs received by the assessee as transfer fee. It is the claim of the Revenue that such transfer fee is not covered by the principle of mutuality and therefore taxable.

3.

At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 in and for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 230/M/2013. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the Tribunal (supra).

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

5.

We have carefully perused the facts in issue and the decisions of the Tribunal. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. We find that in both the decisions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sind Co.Operative Housing Soc. Vs ITO 317 ITR 47 and Shyam Co- Operative Housing Society Vs CIT in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 92,93 & 206 of 2008 dated 17.7.2009 which has also been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 8th October, 2015

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →