Chelmsford Club v. CIT

243 ITR 89Supreme Court of India2000#1113 most cited

What is Chelmsford Club v. CIT authority for?

Income arising from mutual activities carried out by clubs or associations solely among their members is not assessable for income tax, as it does not constitute income from a trade or business due to the principle of mutuality.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chelmsford Club v. CIT · 243 ITR 89 · doctrine of mutuality · mutuality principle · clubs and associations income · non-taxable income · Section 11 · Section 263 · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 263Section 57(iii)Section 11Section 12
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mutualitysection 59(2)mutuality principlesection 2(n)section 10(20)section 38section 59lack of enquirysection 80p(2)(a)national faceless assessment centremalabar industrialsection 57

Judgments citing Chelmsford Club v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7, Pune vs. Vasundhara Apporva Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 422/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7, Pune vs. Ashokkumar Sobhagmal, Patni

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 420/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7, Pune vs. Amitkumar Gajendrakumar Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 418/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Arihant Patni, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 442/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7, Pune vs. Apoorva Ashokkumar Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 421/PUN/2020[2017-20189]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7, Pune vs. Arihant Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 419/PUN/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -7, Pune vs. Shruti Arihant Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 569/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -7, Pune vs. Arihant Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 568/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -7, Pune vs. Apoorva Ashokkumar Patni, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 567/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 64

…vacant during the whole year under consideration was assessable to income-tax under the head ‘income from house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what is being taxed under section 22 is the 'deemed income' of an assessee from the property owned by him”. ........ “What was charged under section 22 was the annual value of the ownership of the property ir…

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.234/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., S.V. Phadnis C.A. / Sushant S. Phadnis, 613 E Ward, Phadnis Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur – 416001 Pan: Aaats5436L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 22

…961, it makes clear that what is to be taxed under the provisions of section 22 under the head „Income from house property‟ is deemed income of the assessee from the property owned by him as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT 243 ITR 89 (SC) and what is charged to tax under section 22 is that the annual value of the property irrespective of the fact whether income was actually received or had accrued to the assessee. There is no provision for allowing unrealized rent while computing the income under the head „Income from house property‟. Therefore, we are of the considered opinio…

M/S Madras Race Club, Chennai vs. DCIT Corpo Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 503/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 501, 502 & 503/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Madras Race Club, The DCIT, Post Box No.2639, vs. Corporate Circle – 4(1), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Chennai – 34. PAN: AAACM7640R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocates ""यथ" क…

M/S Madras Race Club, Chennai vs. DCIT Corpo Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 502/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 501, 502 & 503/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Madras Race Club, The DCIT, Post Box No.2639, vs. Corporate Circle – 4(1), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Chennai – 34. PAN: AAACM7640R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocates ""यथ" क…

M/S Madras Race Club, Chennai vs. DCIT Corpo Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 501/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 501, 502 & 503/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Madras Race Club, The DCIT, Post Box No.2639, vs. Corporate Circle – 4(1), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Chennai – 34. PAN: AAACM7640R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocates ""यथ" क…

M/S Savitri Phule Mahila Bahu Kuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Bharatpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4

…Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who upheld the view taken by the assessing officer and denied the claim of principle of mutuality deduction by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chelmsford Club Vs CIT 243 ITR 89(SC) and held that the very fact that the society is earning surplus interest income and contributing to its fund defies the principle of mutuality. 2.3 Now aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. As regards the claim of exemption under the principle of mutuality is concerned, the learned AR su…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Deloitte Touche Tohmastu, Gurgaon

ITA 530/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6703/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.5760/Del/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 Ita No.5759/Del/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 Ita No.530/Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12

…o bring before the Bench the concept and principles upon which rule of mutuality has to be ascertained. i. International Zinc Association [2018] 94 taxmann.com 27 (AAR- New Delhi) ii. CIT v. Bankipur Club Limited 226 ITR 97 (SC) iii. Chelmsford Club v. C.I.T. 243 ITR 89 (SC) 8 ITA No. 5759 & Ors. iv. Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT 308 ITR 202 (Kar) v. Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) vi. A P Moller Maersk AS vs. DIT (IT) [2017] 392 ITR 186 vii. CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC)] viii. KPMG 8] taxmann.com 118 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai Tribunal). ix. ITAT…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S Deloitte Touche Tohmastu, Gurgaon

ITA 6703/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6703/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.5760/Del/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 Ita No.5759/Del/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 Ita No.530/Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12

…o bring before the Bench the concept and principles upon which rule of mutuality has to be ascertained. i. International Zinc Association [2018] 94 taxmann.com 27 (AAR- New Delhi) ii. CIT v. Bankipur Club Limited 226 ITR 97 (SC) iii. Chelmsford Club v. C.I.T. 243 ITR 89 (SC) 8 ITA No. 5759 & Ors. iv. Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT 308 ITR 202 (Kar) v. Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) vi. A P Moller Maersk AS vs. DIT (IT) [2017] 392 ITR 186 vii. CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC)] viii. KPMG 8] taxmann.com 118 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai Tribunal). ix. ITAT…

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmastu, Gurgaon

ITA 5760/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6703/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.5760/Del/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 Ita No.5759/Del/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 Ita No.530/Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12

…o bring before the Bench the concept and principles upon which rule of mutuality has to be ascertained. i. International Zinc Association [2018] 94 taxmann.com 27 (AAR- New Delhi) ii. CIT v. Bankipur Club Limited 226 ITR 97 (SC) iii. Chelmsford Club v. C.I.T. 243 ITR 89 (SC) 8 ITA No. 5759 & Ors. iv. Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT 308 ITR 202 (Kar) v. Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) vi. A P Moller Maersk AS vs. DIT (IT) [2017] 392 ITR 186 vii. CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC)] viii. KPMG 8] taxmann.com 118 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai Tribunal). ix. ITAT…

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmastu, Gurgaon

ITA 5759/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6703/Del/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.5760/Del/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 Ita No.5759/Del/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 Ita No.530/Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12

…o bring before the Bench the concept and principles upon which rule of mutuality has to be ascertained. i. International Zinc Association [2018] 94 taxmann.com 27 (AAR- New Delhi) ii. CIT v. Bankipur Club Limited 226 ITR 97 (SC) iii. Chelmsford Club v. C.I.T. 243 ITR 89 (SC) 8 ITA No. 5759 & Ors. iv. Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT 308 ITR 202 (Kar) v. Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) vi. A P Moller Maersk AS vs. DIT (IT) [2017] 392 ITR 186 vii. CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC)] viii. KPMG 8] taxmann.com 118 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai Tribunal). ix. ITAT…

M/S Vip Group Housing Society, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

ITA 923/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…d excluded from the principle of mutuality." 3. CIT vs Prabhukunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 13 (Guj) 4. CIT vs. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (1995) 213 ITR 677 (Guj) 5. Chelmsford Club vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 235 : (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 102 : (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC) 8. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 495 (SC) 9. CIT vs Talangang Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 44 DTR (Del) 58 in which it was held that: the bye-laws clearly…

M/S Anil Kumar Singhal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

ITA 679/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…d excluded from the principle of mutuality." 3. CIT vs Prabhukunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 13 (Guj) 4. CIT vs. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (1995) 213 ITR 677 (Guj) 5. Chelmsford Club vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 235 : (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 102 : (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC) 8. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 495 (SC) 9. CIT vs Talangang Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 44 DTR (Del) 58 in which it was held that: the bye-laws clearly…