What is CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. authority for?

The doctrine of mutuality applies only when there is complete identity between the contributors to a common fund and the participants in its surplus. Income received from non-members or distinct classes of members who do not share this identity is not covered by mutuality and is taxable.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (226 ITR 97), spanning 2000 to 2026.

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

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

CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (226 ITR 97)

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

ITA 678/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

…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 exposit that it is for the ITA Nos. 923, 677, 678 & 679/JP/2019 9 M/s VIP Grou…

M/S Darshan Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

ITA 677/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

…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 exposit that it is for the ITA Nos. 923, 677, 678 & 679/JP/2019 9 M/s VIP Grou…

The Association of Physician of India, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax (E) II (2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2623/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

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

…his Range only and it was also claiming Exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is mutual organization Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 4 of 11 (refer the case of Bankipur Club Ltd. 226 ITR 97 wherein the CCI Club was also a party). The object of solidarity and endowment for its members clearly show that the dominant object of the assessee is to provide amenities and facilities to the members of the assessee trust only. It is, therefore, held that the assessee is a mutual organization. viii. The assessee is predominantly a mutual associ…

Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 648/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limiyrf, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 1017/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3)., Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 1016/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 1015/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 1014/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed”

ITA 1013/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri B.Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application. 35. The decision of this court was long prior to Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), and no reference was made therein to Royal Western India Turf Club. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). As we have considered these cases in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these three judgments, we do not feel compelled to apply the ratio in Natraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732…

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(4), Bangalore

ITA 413/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the society. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the principles of mutuality will not apply to associate members. With regard to the principles of mutuality, the Ld CIT(A) placed his reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bankipur Club (226 ITR 97) and Chelmsford Club (243 ITR 89). Accordingly, he held that the associate members are distinctly different and they cannot be equated with regular members. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the A.O. was justified in raising the impugned demands. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us, i.e., one against the demand raised u/s…

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(4), Bangalore

ITA 412/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)

…of the society. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the principles of mutuality will not apply to associate members. With regard to the principles of mutuality, the Ld CIT(A) placed his reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bankipur Club (226 ITR 97) and Chelmsford Club (243 ITR 89). Accordingly, he held that the associate members are distinctly different and they cannot be equated with regular members. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the A.O. was justified in raising the impugned demands. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us, i.e., one against the demand raised u/s…

M/S., Madras Boat Club, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 4 (1), Chennai

ITA 2748/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2748 & 2749/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Madras Boat Club, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 2, 3Rd Avenue, Boat Club Road, Income Tax, Raja Annamalai Puram, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aagcm1107P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai Dated 20.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 21015-16. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of The Addition Of ₹.1,26,10,000/- In The Assessment Year 2013-14 & ₹.78,00,000/- In The Assessment Year 2015-16 Being The Entrance Fees Collected From Members Having No Voting Rights Under The Head Income From Business, In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Also Disputed The Addition Of ₹.2,30,727/- Being Surplus Income Over Expenditure As Well As Addition Of ₹.37,66,492/- Being The Interest Income Under The Head Income From Other Sources For The Assessment Year 2013-14 & The Claim Of Loss

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT

Section 25

…essee company and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above addition by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Co- operative Limited v. ACIT (supra) by holding that the old decision i.e., in the case of CIT Vs. Bankipur Club Ltd., 226 ITR 97 (SC) is deemed to have been over-ruled by the decision in the case of Citizen Co-operative Limited v. ACIT (supra), which has redefined the principles of mutuality and taxation of revenue generated from non-voting associate members of any cooperative society. 5.1 We have perused the decision in the case of Citizen Co-operative Limited v. ACIT (su…

DDIT (E), New Delhi vs. National Association of Software and Service Companies, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6521/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Aajy Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 28

…ny variance in the subscription fee or voting rights are relevant while claiming exemption under the principle of mutuality. They have placed reliance on the decisions reported in (i) CIT vs Merchant Navy Club, 96 ITR 261 (AP); (ii) CIT vs Bankipur Club Ltd., 226 ITR 97 (SC); (iii) Chelmsford Club vs CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC); (iv) Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. vs CIT, 171 ITR 504 (Guj); (v) CIT vs Delhi Race Club, 196 ITR 777 (Del); (vi) Ranchi Club Ltd. vs CIT, 196 ITR 137 (Patna); and (vii) CIT vs National Sports Club of India, 230 ITR 777 (Del). 5. Learned CIT(A) considered submissions of the assessee in the light…

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

Appeal are allowed

ITA 994/CHANDI/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…b was with the State Government. The club was not assessed as mutual concern in A.Y. 2007-08 as it failed to fulfill the three tests of mutuality as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT 243 ITR 89 and in CIT Vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. 226 ITR 97. The claim of the assessee as a mutual concern was also not accepted as the assessee in the income tax return has no where stated that Panchkula Golf Club is a mutual concern. The Form used to file income tax return was not applicable in this case. Further, AO noted that the sum of Rs.94,62,549/- as one time entrance fee contribution from the memb…

Windsor Home Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16 Windsor Home Owners Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Welfare Association, Ward – 1, Vikarabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaaw 4867G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Smt. Esther N. Hongal Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Esther N. Hongal

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 70

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A-SMC', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Windsor Home Owners vs. Income-tax Officer, Welfare Association, Ward – 1, Vikarabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAAAW 4867G Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue by: Smt. Esther N. Hongal Date of hearing: 06/06/2019 Date of pronouncement: 21/06/2019 O R D E R This is an appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 against the order of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad dated 19/07/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a society formed by the organisation of mem…

ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 2447/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Matunga Gymkhana, (Exemptions)-2(1), 263/A Lakhamsey Napoo Road, 512, 5Th Floor, Matunga, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai - 400019 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aaatm1035F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143Section 2(15)

…le Income Tax Act, 1961 and not covered by the principle Of mutuality though the assessee trust was violating Provisions of Section 13 of I.T. Act, 1961 and thereby ignored the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court n the case of Bankipur Club Ltd (226 ITR 97). 4. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was right in granting relief to the assessee on interest income, restaurant compensation, compensation from decorator, etc. ignoring the fact that such income are earned from non-members. 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the…

M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(1). Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…and drinks to the members. By an order dated December 3, 2007 passed under section 147, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and did not make any addition in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v, Bankipur Club Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC). (f) In CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. {supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that facilities by way of provision of food and drinks extended by a members' club to its members and their friends as part of the usual privileges, advantages and conveniences attached to the membership of the club was not a trading activity and the excess of…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] DCIT, v s M/s. AT & S Pvt.Ltd., Circle-11(1), Aayakar 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud, Bhawan, P-7, Mysore, Karnataka-741251. Chowringhee Square, PAN-AAECA2930J Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT & Sh. Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Rituparna Sinha & Sh. Anup Sinha, AR Date of Hearing 07.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 05.10.201…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] DCIT, v s M/s. AT & S Pvt.Ltd., Circle-11(1), Aayakar 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud, Bhawan, P-7, Mysore, Karnataka-741251. Chowringhee Square, PAN-AAECA2930J Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT & Sh. Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Rituparna Sinha & Sh. Anup Sinha, AR Date of Hearing 07.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 05.10.201…

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

…le 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 assessee does not fulfill these requir…

CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.

What is CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.

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

M/S Darshan Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-1, Jaipur

The Association of Physician of India, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax (E) II (2), Mumbai

Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limiyrf, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

Armed Forces Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3)., Hyderabad

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

The Armed Forces Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(4), Bangalore

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(4), Bangalore

M/S., Madras Boat Club, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 4 (1), Chennai

DDIT (E), New Delhi vs. National Association of Software and Service Companies, New Delhi

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

Windsor Home Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vikarabad

ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(1). Kolkata, Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

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