How many judgments cite Bangalore Club v. CIT?

247 judgments on BharatTax cite Bangalore Club v. CIT (350 ITR 509), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bangalore Club v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 56, Section 80P(2)(d), Section 254, Section 142(1).

Bangalore Club v. CIT

350 ITR 509Supreme Court of India2013#351 most cited

What is Bangalore Club v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of mutuality, holding that contributions received from and returned to members for a common purpose do not constitute taxable profits. However, income from transactions with non-members or interest earned from investments in external entities (like cooperative banks) may break the mutuality chain and be taxable under Section 56, falling outside the scope of Section 80P deductions.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bangalore Club v. CIT · mutuality principle · doctrine of mutuality · Section 80P · Section 80P(2)(d) · Section 56 · cooperative society income · interest income taxability · income from other sources · mutual undertaking · members club · taxation of clubs

Also reported as

29 Taxmann.com 295 SCC 509212 Taxmann 566

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 56 Section 80P(2)(d)Section 254 Section 142(1)Section 80P Section 80P(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

mutuality principle doctrine of mutuality section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)section 80p(1)section 80p(4)section 2(15)section 80p(2)(d)section 10(23c)section 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 80p(2)

Judgments citing Bangalore Club v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Poona Club Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1481/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1481/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-4, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Poona Club Ltd., 6, Poona Club, Bund Garden Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411001 Pan: Aabcp1272B

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil Pathak and Shri Nilesh Kandelwal

Section 143(3)Section 57

…s of appeal:- 3 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals- 3){CIT-(A)} has erred in confirming the assessment on the issue of income from interest of Rs. 86,20,216/- by incorrectly applying the judgment of BANGLORE CLUB Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (350 ITR 509) (SC). 2) The CIT (A) has erred in not considering a claim on the point of computation of income from interest as prayed by the appellant before AO and in suppression of it declared in the return of income. 3) The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the appellant had withdrawn their contention that income from interest is not covere…

The Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C+SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.2787 & 2788/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 M/s. The Veer Cooperative The Income Tax Officer, Group Housing Society vs. Ward-39(4), Limited, Plot No.28, Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. New Delhi. PAN AAAAT6615K Appellant Respondent Shri Rano Jain, Mr. Pranshy Singhal & Assessee by : Ms. Mansi Jain Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04 .09.2018 2…

Thye Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 444/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Bnp Paribas Sa, Dcit(Int. Taxation)-1(3)(1), 1, North Avenue, Room No.119, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Maker Maxity, Scindia House, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Ballard Estate, Bandra East, Mumbai-400038 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacb4868Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Farrokh Irani राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Samuel Darse Cit-Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

…e lower authorities, whether transaction is covered by the Special Bench, the issue of mutuality was not considered by the Special Bench. He also relied on the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT, reported in (2013) 350 ITR 509 (SC) and our attention was invited to para 23. It was contended by the learned DR that taking loan from HO at interest itself shows that borrowing is on commercial basis, therefore, there is no question of applying principle of mutuality. He further contended that if principle of mutuality is applied in all the cases, Section 44C will be redundan…

M/S. Gidderbaha Janta Truck Union, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 660/ASR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 660/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra, (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 2(31)

…from outside oneself – as is contract receipt, the quantum of income from which source is the subject matter of dispute, is income, as indeed it would be for any other person. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Banglore Club v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 509 (SC), reiterating the settled position of law in the matter with reference to several judicial precedents. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on August 28, 2018 (N. K. Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 28.08.2018 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Panchkula Golf Club, Panchkula

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 461/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue By : Sh. N.D. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. N.D. Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…and so claimed the exemption. Further, it was argued that the original return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2009 and the issue of taxability of interest income was adjudicated by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT 350 ITR 509 dated 14.01.2013 i.e. much after the date of filing of return of income. He also relied on the following judgments in favour of the assessee prior to decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court, i) Delhi HC- All India Oriental Bank of commerce Welfare Society [2003] 130 Taxman 5765 (Del.) ii) Karnataka HC - Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Panchkula Golf Club, Panchkula

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 462/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue By : Sh. N.D. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. N.D. Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Audit Bureau of Circulations, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG-II, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 5681/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. No.5681/M/2015 & 6393/M/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Audit Bureau of Vs. Addl. Director of Income Circulations Tax (Exemp.), Range-11 Wakefield House, Sprott Mumbai ( Now Income Tax Road, Ballard Estate, Officer (Exemption) 1(1) Mumbai. Pin:400001 Piramal Chamber, Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATA4100F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sunil Nahta (AR) Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR) Date of Hearing: 20.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07…

Powerloom Developement & Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Powerloom Development & Ito (Exemption)-2(2), 4Th Floor, Export Promotion Council, C/O Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, बिधम/ Shankar Lal Jain & Associates, Mumbai. Vs. 12, Engineer Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaatp0271E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. S.L Jain , A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…oresaid observations, the A.O concluded that the principle of mutuality applied to the case of the assessee. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 509 (SC) observed that the interest income earned by the assessee fell beyond the scope and gamut of the income that would be covered by the principle of mutuality. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations concluded that the interest income of Rs. 83,44,789/- earned by the assessee by parking its surplus funds by way of deposits with the ba…

Assistant Oint Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pyc Hindu Gymkhana, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 187/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Pathak

Section 11Section 2(15)

…ees and other receipts received exclusively from the members of the club, qualifies with respect to the principle of mutuality and hence, the same is not taxable. However, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT, 350 ITR 509, wherein it has been held that interest income earned by mutual concern from the bank is liable to be taxed, CIT(A) held that the surplus is outside the scope of the principle of mutuality. Regarding the receipts from supply of drinks, refreshment and other grounds, sports activity, letting out building on rent for conference etc, it is found by…

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6469/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Bank Of India Retired Employees Ito(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabtb3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar, D.R

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 6469/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Trust Vs. ITO(E)-1(1). IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Bank of India Retired Employees ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABTB3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri. Vijay Mehta प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Shri. Suman Kumar, D.R सुनवाई की तायीख / :…

The New Vikash Co-Op. House Building Society Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result ITA NO. 6051/Del/2013 is partly allowed

ITA 3596/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 155Section 2(24)Section 2(31)Section 45Section 45(5)

…preciating that society itself has declared its taxable income u/s 2(24) of the Act on account of bank interest etc. We find now this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Club Vs. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC), wherein, it has been held that the interest earned by the assessee club on certain fixed deposits kept with certain banks who are also corporate members of the assessee is not covered by the mutuality principles and would therefore, be chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Su…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4457/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…he 2 I.T.A. No.4457/Del/2015 Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,78,575/- made on account of bank interest being not covered under principle of mutuality in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC).” 2. The facts in brief and the background of the case are that the assessee society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 21.10.1987 and was also registered u/s. 12AA(1) on 13.01.1989. The assessee society was promoted for the purpose of protection of the natural habitat and environment and was promoted by HUDCO unde…

DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S the Saturday Club Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 837/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Ms. Sana Javed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…s grievance before us is that Assessing Officer had rightly treated the impugned rental income as well as service fee to be not covered under mutuality principle. The assessing authority had quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Bangalore Club vs CIT [2013] 350 ITR 509 (SC) settling the law that there are three conditions to be satisfied in case an assessee claims itself to be covered under ‘mutuality’ principle. They are (i) there has to be complete identity between the contributors and the participants (ii) their action(s) must be in furtherance of mutual mandate and also that there should not be any scope of…

Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6547/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Ito-21(2)(1), R.No. 107, Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No. Aaaak 4678 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak P. Rikekar & Shri Ajit Gupte, Cas. Department By : Ms. N. Hemalatha – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Deepak P. Rikekar &For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha – Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…operatives society while earning interest at higher rates, therefore, the surplus would form part of its general reserve fund. The Assessing Officer taking support of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bangalore Club vs. CIT (2013) 5 SCC 509 and in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) concluded that as the income of Rs. 27,72,529/- earned by the credit society was not earned from the activity of providing banking facilities to its members and was outside the purview of “Principle of Mutuality”, therefore, the interest income of Rs. 27,72,52…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Venkatesh Premises Coop.Sty.Ltd

C.A. No.-002706-002706 - 2018Supreme Court12 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Section 79

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2706 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 30194/2010) INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VENKATESH PREMISES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ….RESPONDENT(S) with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3271 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3272 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8741 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2708 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2707 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 30195/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2713 OF 2018 (arising out…

Bnp Pribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

ITA 1182/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 90

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Kpmg, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2493/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason. P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singhdcit -3 (1), M/S Kpmg Room No. 136, 1St Floor, C/O Kpmg House, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Vs. Ballard Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400038 Parel Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaafk1415H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…fairness learned counsel submitted that he mainly relied upon the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs Bankipur Club [1997] ITA No.2493/M/2012 & C.O. 97/M/2013 M/s KPMG 226 ITR 97; Chelmsford Club versus CIT [2009] 243 ITR 89; Bangalore Club versus CIT [2013] 350 ITR 509 and the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT versus Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) [2009]319 ITR 179 (Delhi). The ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO relied on the case of DCIT Vs Arthur Andersen &Co (ITA No.9125/M/1995) wherein the Tribunal held that tax was required to be deducted at source. It was vehemently argued that…

ACIT Circle-I vs. The New Vikas Cooperative House Building Society Ltd

ITA 2214/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kr Gupta, Adv

Section 139Section 148Section 155Section 2(24)Section 45

…ecided on 24/08/2010, Commissioner of income tax versus Karambir Singh HUF in ITA No. 209 of 2004 decided on 27/10/2010 and CM No. 27928 – 29 – CII of 2010 in ITA No. 85 of 2010 decided on 16/12/2010 and judgment of the Apex court in Bangalore club versus CIT 350 ITR 509 and insertion of explanation to section 2 (31) by finance act, 2002 effective from 01/04/2002, the matter is required to be remanded to the tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.” 7. Therefore now the issue before us is whether by virtue of explanation to section 2 (31) by finance act 2002 introduced…

Dheeraj Dreams, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4963/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhdheeraj Dreams, फनाभ/ Ito-23(1)(4), B-Wing Dreams Complex, Mumbai. Vs. Station Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400 078. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaad6811F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri C.V. Dharkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DharkarFor Respondent: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, DR

…o the CHS. On finding the interest earned is not from the CHS, from the Bank, a separate business entity, in effect; the Revenue Officers invoked the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (SC) 350 ITR 509 and others. It is the opinion of the IT Officers that the said amount is outside the principle of mutuality. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the said addition. Aggrieved with the same, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts relating to the said amount is different from that…