Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

424 ITR 630Supreme Court of India2020#9785 most cited

What is Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The doctrine of mutuality requires a complete identity between contributors and participants or beneficiaries, and an entity cannot trade with itself. The existence of mutuality is a factual exercise, and without a profit motive, surplus is not taxable.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · doctrine of mutuality · mutuality principle · taxability of surplus · complete identity of contributors and participants · no profit motive · factual exercise

Also reported as

116 Taxmann.com 374189 DTR 1271 Taxmann 217313 CTR 37

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mutualitymutuality principlesection 10(20)section 38section 253(1)section 2(19)right to receivesection 18section 16section 80p(2)(a)section 57section 2(24)

Judgments citing Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 664/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &
Section 23Section 3

…nefits only to members while compelling contribu"ons from non-members would not suffice to invoke the principle of mutuality and exempt the surplus from tax. 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited vs. CIT (2020) 424 ITR 630 provided a detailed analysis of the doctrine of mutuality, particularly emphasizing the necessity for complete identity between contributors and participants or beneficiaries and held that this principle is central to determining the taxability of surplus under IT Act. 49. Hon’ble Court held that the doctrine of mutuality is grounded in the funda…

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 663/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &
Section 23Section 3

…nefits only to members while compelling contribu"ons from non-members would not suffice to invoke the principle of mutuality and exempt the surplus from tax. 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited vs. CIT (2020) 424 ITR 630 provided a detailed analysis of the doctrine of mutuality, particularly emphasizing the necessity for complete identity between contributors and participants or beneficiaries and held that this principle is central to determining the taxability of surplus under IT Act. 49. Hon’ble Court held that the doctrine of mutuality is grounded in the funda…

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 662/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &
Section 23Section 3

…nefits only to members while compelling contribu"ons from non-members would not suffice to invoke the principle of mutuality and exempt the surplus from tax. 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited vs. CIT (2020) 424 ITR 630 provided a detailed analysis of the doctrine of mutuality, particularly emphasizing the necessity for complete identity between contributors and participants or beneficiaries and held that this principle is central to determining the taxability of surplus under IT Act. 49. Hon’ble Court held that the doctrine of mutuality is grounded in the funda…

Omkar 1998 Co Op Housing Society Ltd, College Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik, Gadkari Chowk

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED and all the grounds stands adjudicated accordingly

ITA 284/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0284/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 0284/PUN/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Omkar 1998 Co-op. Housing Society Patil Lane No-3, College Road, Nashik-422005 PAN: AAAAO3664M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 28/05//2024 घोषणा क…

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bedkihal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

ITA 24/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

…॥आयकरअपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) Asstt Sr ITA No. Appellant Vs Respondent Ld. AR Year 1 02/PAN/2023 2013-14 The Marcel Urban Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-2(3), Mr Rohan Credit Society Ltd., Panaji. Tarkar 2 22/PAN/2023 2017-18 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., Mr Ravish Rao 3 23/PAN/2023 2018-19 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., 4…

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 23/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

…॥आयकरअपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) Asstt Sr ITA No. Appellant Vs Respondent Ld. AR Year 1 02/PAN/2023 2013-14 The Marcel Urban Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-2(3), Mr Rohan Credit Society Ltd., Panaji. Tarkar 2 22/PAN/2023 2017-18 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., Mr Ravish Rao 3 23/PAN/2023 2018-19 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., 4…

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 22/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

…॥आयकरअपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) Asstt Sr ITA No. Appellant Vs Respondent Ld. AR Year 1 02/PAN/2023 2013-14 The Marcel Urban Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-2(3), Mr Rohan Credit Society Ltd., Panaji. Tarkar 2 22/PAN/2023 2017-18 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., Mr Ravish Rao 3 23/PAN/2023 2018-19 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., 4…

The Marcel Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Marcel vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

ITA 2/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

…॥आयकरअपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) Asstt Sr ITA No. Appellant Vs Respondent Ld. AR Year 1 02/PAN/2023 2013-14 The Marcel Urban Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-2(3), Mr Rohan Credit Society Ltd., Panaji. Tarkar 2 22/PAN/2023 2017-18 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., Mr Ravish Rao 3 23/PAN/2023 2018-19 Shri Gopalkrishna Co-op Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Credit Society Ltd., 4…

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3945/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yum Restaurants Marketing Ito Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Ward-27(4), 12Th Floor, Tower-D, New Delhi. Global Business Park, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacy1884D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…bmitted that though assessee has raised various grounds, but, the grounds of applicability of Doctrine of Mutuality and without prejudice, diversion by overriding title stands rejected in assessee’s own case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order reported in 424 ITR 630 (SC). He, therefore, submitted that the only surviving issue is about the various computational errors in the order of assessment, inter alia are as under: 4.1. Excess of expenditure over income of Rs.20,00,30,211/- is not taxable as Unrecognized Revenue. • It was claimed by the assessee-company that in the years contribution made was in excess o…

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2562/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…bmitted that though assessee has raised various grounds, but, the grounds of applicability of Doctrine of Mutuality and without prejudice, diversion by overriding title stands rejected in assessee’s own case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order reported in 424 ITR 630 (SC). He, therefore, submitted that the only surviving issue is about the various computational errors in the order of assessment, inter alia are as under : 4.1. Excess of expenditure over income of Rs.20,00,30,211/- is not taxable as Unrecognized Revenue. It was claimed by the assessee-company that in the years contribution made was in excess o…

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Yum! Restaurants Income Tax Officer, Vs. Marketing Private Limited, Ward : 27 (4), 12Th Floor, Tower : D, Global Business Park, New Delhi. M.G.Road, Gurgaon–122002. Pan : Aaacy1884D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate; Department By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr; Date Of Hearing 30.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2021

For Appellant: Mr. S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 234B

…erused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee’s first claim with respect to the income of the assessee not chargeable to tax because of principles of mutuality has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case reported in 424 ITR 630. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the income of the assessee is chargeable to tax and principle of mutuality does not apply. In view of this, ground Nos. 2–7 of the appeal, are dismissed. 08. With respect to ground Nos. 8 & 9 with respect to the income of the assessee not chargeable to tax on the principle of…