How many judgments cite Chelmsford Club v. CIT?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite Chelmsford Club v. CIT (243 ITR 89), spanning 2009 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 263, Section 57(iii).

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 144B Section 263 Section 57(iii)Section 11 Section 12

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mutuality section 59(2)mutuality principle section 2(n)section 10(20)section 38 section 59 lack of enquiry section 80p(2)(a)national faceless assessment centre malabar industrial section 57

Judgments citing Chelmsford Club v. CIT

Dehradun Club Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4753/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 4753/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dehradun Club Ltd., Vs Dcit, 15, New Survey Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd8246L Assessee By : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement:07.02.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dehradun Dated 17.04.2018. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.4,05,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Mutual Benefit Club Registered As A Company Limited By Guarantee U/S 25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act & In The Assessment Framed Thereafter U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Made Addition To The Income Of The Assessee Of Rs.9,69,937/- Under The Head Interest Income On Fdr & Rs.2,28,000/- Under The Head Messing Commission. 2 Dehradun Club Ltd. 4. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Of Rs.4,03,225/-.

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

…ing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee particularly when it has given all the necessary details regarding interest income of FDRs and messing up charges. This proposition of law was settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chelmsford Club vs. CIT-243 ITR 89 (SC), the operative part of which is reproduced as under: “Held, reversing the decision of High Court, that the assessee’s business was governed by the doctrine of mutuality. It was an admitted fact that the business of the assessee did not come within the scope of business referred to in section 2(24)(vii). It was not only the surplus from the ac…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ry in the statement of accounted by the assessee showing certain income as agricultural income, without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263(1) would be justified- Ma/abar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 89 (SC). Where the Assessing Officer completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3) and admitted that he could not make proper enquiries as assessment was becoming time-barred, there is valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner, in setting aside the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh ass…

The Uniworld Garden Apartment Owners Assocaition, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7246/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mahna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N/K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 57

…the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. All India Oriental Bank Of Commerce Welfare Society, (2003) 130 Taxman 575, 577 (Delhi) applying Chemsford Club Vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 89(SC)? 5.) Whether the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the mandate of the assessee welfare society is a question of fact and which can only be determined from the memorandum or articles of association, rules of membership, rules of the organization, etc ? 6.) Whether the Learned CIT(A) as well as Id. A.O. has construed the mandate of th…

Hdfc Asset Management Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3336/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…this year, as the assessment made in each assessment year is different and the allowability of expenses would depend upon facts relating thereto. The Ld D.R took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. (243 ITR 80). 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has simply furnished break up details of Business promotion expenses and Travelling expenses before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO has accepted the claim of the assessee without making any enquiry. The Ld A.R took us t…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 463/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.D. Gupta,Sr.DR

Section 271

…r, liberty be granted to th4 revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 4. In the said background the assessing officer relying upon the decisions of the apex court in the case of Chelmsford Club Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 89 (S.C) and CIT Vs Bankipur Club 226 ITR 971 held that the three tests of mutuality were not fulfilled; namely, (i) the identity between contributors as a beneficiary; b) the objectives of mutual benefit; and c) the actual activities resulting in either mutual benefit or return of the contributions to the contributors. Accordingly, it was held that…

The Poona Club Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1512/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

…, relating to assessment year 1995-96, order dated 05.09.2005 c. ACIT Vs. Poona Club Ltd. in ITA No.509/PN/1999, relating to assessment year 1995-96, order dated 11.11.2009 d. CIT Vs. Bankipur Club reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) e. Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC) 14. The Revenue placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is in respect of charges received from guest of members and whether the same fall within the ‘principle of mutuality’, hence not taxable in the hand…

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

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil Pathak and Shri Nilesh Kandelwal

Section 143(3)Section 57

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)

…rinciple of mutuality to the said surplus receipts, the CIT(A) examined this issue in para 5.1 of his order. The assessee placed reliance on the various decisions in the cases viz. (i) CIT Vs. Bankipur Club Ltd, 226 ITR 97(SC) (ii) Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) and (iii) DCIT Vs. Gymkhana Club, 6 ITR ( Trib.) 808 (Del.) and submitted that the said excess is exempt in view of the principles of mutuality. Per contra, the CIT(A) observed that entrance fees, the membership fees and other receipts received exclusively from the members of the club, qualifies with respect to the principle of mutuality and…

Kalaimaghal Sabha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

…e or business with himself. Thus the main test of mutuality is complete with the identity of contributors with the recipients. This view was confirmed by Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Bankipur Club (226 ITR 97) and in the case of Chelmsford club Vs CIT (243 ITR 89). Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Madras Race Club and also held that it is enough if the members had a right of disposal over the surplus to show that they are participants. The same principle was enunciated in Addl CIT Vs Secundarabad club (150 ITR 401 (Appx)). Similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in the…

Kalaimaghal Sabha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

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)

…the form of legal paper book. However, in all 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 dedu…

Employers Federation of Southern India, Chennai vs. ADIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1854/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1854/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-2010. M/S. Employers Federation Vs. The Assistant Direcotor Of Of Southern India, Income Tax, No.33, Hindi Pracher Street, Exemption –Iii, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaaat 0118M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. Ashush Tripathi, IRS, JCIT

Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 2(15)

…tivity of rendering service in relation to trade, commerce or business. (ii) Principles of mutuality as classified by Circular No.11/2008, dated 19.12.2008 of CBDT was not considered nor were the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT 243 ITR 89 and that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. JK Organization Limited 279 ITR 503 considered. (iii) All money collected through subscription were credited to general fund. As per governing rules, surplus could not be distributed to members. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed by the above argumen…

M/S. Swarn Jayanti Rail Nagar Flat Owners Association, Noida vs. JCIT, Noida

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 6361/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Arun Kundra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

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

…see society. Under these facts a perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bangalore Club shows that the Hon'ble High Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club reported in 243 ITR 89 (S.C.) and has held as follows "In the said judgment the Division Bench has made it very clear that income earned from an outside agency on interest or securities from the bank would not be covered on the principles of mutuality for claiming exemption from tax. This judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. On the facts of this case a…

Sports & Cultural Club (Regd), Noida vs. JCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1897/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Chandra Mohan Garg Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Shri Ashish Chadha and Shri Ashish Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 251

…e because it was received from third parties. 6. He further stated that it is a settled law that the clubs are entitled to benefit of mutuality. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT – [2000] 243 ITR 89 (SC) and CIT Vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. – [1997] 226 ITR 97 (SC). He further stated that even in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) relied upon by the Assessing Officer, the assessee i.e., Bangalore Club was allowed the benefit of doctrine of mutuality in respect of all other receipts except the interest income. H…

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4024/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit (E), India Habitat Centre, Inv. Circle-I, Lodhi Road, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaati0499M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Suresh Anantharaman, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…ity i.e. "The identity of the contributors to the fund and the recipients from the funds" which has also been held to be the first condition for applicability of mutuality clause by the Apex Court in her decision rendered in the case of Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 and the Bank is neither a member contributor to the funds nor has am rights in the funds or assets of the society in the instant case.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that assessee is an association of person which is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act and also registered u/s 80G of the Act. Assessee is purportedly existing for charitable pu…

M/S Independent School'S Federation of India, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5099/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2010-11 Independent School’S Federation Of India Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1 C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal “Satnam” Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Pan : Aaatt4223R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 37(1)

…hanged. (i) Radhsoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 321 (SC) 3 (ii) CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del). B. Receipts/Surplus of entities which are governed by principles of Mutuality is not income. (i) CIT vs. Chlmsford Club vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Cawnpore Club Ltd. (2004) 140 Taxman 378 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scores) 186 Taxman 142 (Delhi) (in this Case SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court) (iv) DIT vs. All India Oriental Bank of Commerce Welfare Society 130 Taxman 142 (Delhi). (v) Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008. C. Legal issue…

M/S. South Asia Forum for Infrastructure Regulation (Safir), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5076/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 South Asia Forum For Infrastructure Vs. Ito, Ward 31(2) (Safir( New Delhi 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Chanderlok Bldg. 36, Janpath New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Aaeas 4365 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Prof.S.Sampath, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT

Section 12ASection 234ASection 234B

…cluded that the members have no control over the fund of the appellant society; therefore the principle of mutuality does not applicable here. Consequentially, the AO placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club 243 ITR 89 held that the appellant failed to be a society wherein the principal of mutuality exists as the identity of the contributors to the fund of the appellant is not certain and the appellant is not under any obligation to refund the funds to the contributors on the dissolution of the society. Accordingly, the AO taxed the appellant's income.” 3. Befo…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Talangang Coop Group Housing Society Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed in limine

ITA - 744 / 2010HC Delhi01 Jul 2010

Section 234Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…ment. 3. Before the assessing officer the assessee claimed exemption on the principles of mutuality. The assessing officer referred to the principles laid down in CIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC), Chelmsford Club v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 89, Haryana State Co-operative Labour and Construction Federation Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 265 (P&H) and culled out the principle that a cooperative group society is not exempt from filing its return nor from income derived from other than constructional activities. After culling out the principle, the assessing officer referred to the letter…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Delhi-XI, New Delhi vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope)

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA-1409/2008HC Delhi25 Sept 2009

…ng with each other, is a "mutual club" or carrying on a trading activity or an adventure in the nature of trade" is largely a question of fact [Wilcock's case - 9 Tax Cases 111, (132) C.A. (1925) (1) KB 30 at 44 and 45].” 17. In Chelmsford Club [2000] 243 ITR 89, the Supreme Court clarified 2009:DHC:4105-DB would be immaterial if there is identity in character of those who contribute and those who participate in surplus. The can be traced out from the following observations: “… where there is identity in the character of those who contribute and of those who participate in the surplus, the fact…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XI vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope)

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA - 1409 / 2008HC Delhi25 Sept 2009