CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club

302 ITR 279High Court2008#10758 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 11Section 12ABSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

compensatory interestsection 206asection 206aasection 10(46)section 10(20)section 197ainterest under section 201(1a)section 197section 271cprincipal officersection 206section 273b

Judgments citing CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club

P Y C HINDU GYMKHANA,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1321/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 PYC Hindu Gymkhana, Vs. CIT (Exemption), 766, Bhandarkar Road, Pune Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra PAN : AAATP1121F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021…

ACIT CORP CIRCLE 4.1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. MADRAS CRICKET CLUB, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1983/CHNY/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 8

…upheld the action of the Ld.CIT(A), who followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rantipur Club Ltd and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club reported in 302 ITR 279, while adjudicating the issue of ‘entrance fees’ collected from Members who doesn’t enjoy the voting rights. The Tribunal thus upheld the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting similar addition made in those years (supra). It would be gainful to refer to the relevant findings of the Tribunal for AY 2012-13, which is reproduced as under: 7. We have…

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…, that would attract the principle of mutuality. Such a finding and consequent applicability of the principle cannot be interfered with unless the revenue from the record points out that the findings are totally perverse – CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club (2008) 302 ITR 279 (Bom).” Thus from above facts & discussions it is clear that such VFPMC are not AOP’S (An independent entity for levy of tax, basis of charge – section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1961) but are only MUTUAL CONCERNS & thus no tax liability, existence (Separate) proved. Further as held at ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of ICICI Securities Ltd. V/s ITO Internat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…, that would attract the principle of mutuality. Such a finding and consequent applicability of the principle cannot be interfered with unless the revenue from the record points out that the findings are totally perverse – CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club (2008) 302 ITR 279 (Bom).” Thus from above facts & discussions it is clear that such VFPMC are not AOP’S (An independent entity for levy of tax, basis of charge – section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1961) but are only MUTUAL CONCERNS & thus no tax liability, existence (Separate) proved. Further as held at ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of ICICI Securities Ltd. V/s ITO Internat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…, that would attract the principle of mutuality. Such a finding and consequent applicability of the principle cannot be interfered with unless the revenue from the record points out that the findings are totally perverse – CIT v. Willingdon Sports Club (2008) 302 ITR 279 (Bom).” Thus from above facts & discussions it is clear that such VFPMC are not AOP’S (An independent entity for levy of tax, basis of charge – section 4 of Income Tax Act, 1961) but are only MUTUAL CONCERNS & thus no tax liability, existence (Separate) proved. Further as held at ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of ICICI Securities Ltd. V/s ITO Internat…

JUBHLIEE HILLS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/205/2005HC Telangana04 Jan 2023

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: Mr. Challa GunaranjanFor Respondent: Mr. J.V.Prasad, Standing Counsel
Section 13Section 260A

…! Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Challa Gunaranjan ^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr. J.V.Prasad, Standing Counsel, IT Department < GIST:  HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED: (2014) 13 SCC 459 (2008) 302 ITR 279 (1997) 5 SCC 394 ::2:: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.205 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department fo…

AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6393/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 11Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ions Vs. ITO (Exemption)-1(1) Council of Maharashtra Vs. CIT (126 ITR 27) (1980) (Bom. H.C.), Shri Khot Hindu Steel Mandal Vs. CIT (209 ITR 396 (1993) (Bom High Court), Banglore Club Vs. CIT (29 taxmann.com 29) (2013) (SC) and CIT Vs. Wellington Sports Club (302 ITR 279) (2008) (Bom. High Court). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. With due regards to the contention raised by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been rejected due to the chan…

KONKAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 194ISection 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…g purposeful commercial use of its all premises does not take it out of exempt category on the grounds of mutuality. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Wellington Club reported in 302 ITR 279 (Bom). Further, it was also argued that the assessee society had made claim for exemption on 4 M/s. Konkan Co-op Housing Society Ltd., the grounds of mutuality as there is no distinction between persons and nominal members as per the provisions of this Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Cou…

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

…(2000) (Bom. High Court), Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. CIT (126 ITR 27) (1980) (Bom. H.C.), Shri Khot Hindu Steel Mandal Vs. CIT (209 ITR 396 (1993) (Bom High Court), Banglore Club Vs. CIT (29 taxmann.com 29) (2013) (SC) and CIT Vs. Wellington Sports Club (302 ITR 279) (2008) (Bom. High Court). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order ITA. No. 6393/M/16&5681/M/15 A.Ys. 2012-13& 2011-12 passed by the CIT(A) in question. With due regards to the contention raised by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the c…

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)

…r considering the contention of assessee and referring the decision of CIT versus Bankipur Club Ltd (supra ), Chelmsford Club versus CIT (supra ), CIT versus Escorts Dealer Association Ltd (119 Taxman 849 Punjab and Haryana), CIT versus Wellington Sport Club (302 ITR 279) and the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT versus Standing Conference of Public Enterprise (SCOPE) 186 Taxman 142, the learned CIT(A) concluded that all contributions came from member firms who directly benefits from the activities of the KPMG International. The identity of the contributors to the fund and recipient of services from the fund is…