← All Phrases

“doctrine of mutuality”

Judicial DoctrinesMutualityMutuality75 judgments

The decision most relied on for doctrine of mutuality is Bangalore Club v. CIT (350 ITR 509), cited in 247 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on doctrine of mutuality

Bangalore Club v. CIT
350 ITR 509 · 2013 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of mutuality, holding that contributions received from and returned to members for a common purpose do not constitute taxable profits. However, income from transactions with non-members or interest earned from investments in external entities (like cooperative banks) may break the mutuality chain and be taxable under Section 56, falling outside the scope of Section 80P deductions.

CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.
226 ITR 97 · 1997 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

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.

Chelmsford Club v. CIT
243 ITR 89 · 2000 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.
88 Taxmann.com 69 · 2017 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

Each assessment year constitutes a separate unit of assessment under the Income-tax Act, and findings or decisions for one assessment year do not operate as res judicata for subsequent assessment years.

CIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd.
24 ITR 551 · 1953 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

A mutual concern may be held to carry on a business or trade with its members, even if the surplus from such trade is not considered income or profit. The court adopted a stricter approach in applying the principle of mutuality, emphasizing the identity of contributors and recipients.

Sind Co-operative Housing Society v. ITO
317 ITR 47 · 2009 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The doctrine of mutuality applies to co-operative societies, preventing income derived from members from being taxed as income from other sources. The court affirmed that the principle of mutuality, as accepted by the jurisdictional High Court, should be followed.

CIT v. Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Thane Belapur) Association
328 ITR 362 · 2010 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Interest earned by an association from surplus funds deposited with non-members is taxable and does not fall under the principle of mutuality.

CIT v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited
339 ITR 525 · 2011 · Reported
21
citing judgments

The doctrine of mutuality is applicable to interest earned on fixed deposits, provided the interest is used for the maintenance and welfare of members. However, some later judgments have dissented from this view, holding that such interest is taxable.

Judgments citing doctrine of mutuality

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

erred and failed to appreciate that the assessee-appellant is a Resident Welfare Association [RWA] and functioning under the doctrine of mutuality, thus its entire surplus is tax free, accordingly the assessee-appellant prays that the surplus of Rs.20,68,030/- offered to tax by misconception of law may kindly

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

erred and failed to appreciate that the assessee-appellant is a Resident Welfare Association [RWA] and functioning under the doctrine of mutuality, thus its entire surplus is tax free, accordingly the assessee-appellant prays that the surplus of Rs.20,68,030/- offered to tax by misconception of law may kindly

Vidyut Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (cited supra) wherein it was held as follows: "...14. The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

surplus funds invested in fixed deposits with the corporate member bank is exempt from levy of income tax, based on the doctrine of mutuality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee is an AOP. The concerned. banks are all corporate members of the club. It is further stated ... that the assessee is already availing the benefit of the doctrine of mutuality in respect of the surplus amount received as contributions or price for some of the facilities availed by its members, before it is deposited with the bank. This surplus amount was not treated as income; since

The Panchratna Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1433/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR.DR.)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

addition amounting to Rs. 66,12,901/- relied on the order of coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai by proposition taken relation to the doctrine of mutuality. Finally the ground was uphold by Ld. CIT(A) by the order dated 28.04.2023. 2.1 Subsequently the Ld.AO issue notice

Gmedapadu Pacs, Gmedapadu vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 574/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction under Section 80P on commission income received from APSCSCL is not sustainable. The source of income being a non-member entity, the doctrine of mutuality stands violated. Therefore, the AO’s action in treating the commission income of Rs.1,82,15,130/- as business income not eligible for deduction ... also not established that any portion of the interest income is derived from activities falling within the ambit of mutuality. For the doctrine of mutuality to apply, there must be a complete identity between contributors and beneficiaries, and the transactions must take place within the closed circle of members

Aradhana Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1285/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 80P

invalid revised return cannot give rise to a fresh claim or alteration in the treatment of income. The claim regarding the Doctrine of Mutuality, which was not properly disclosed in the original return, cannot now be entertained. The appellant's reliance on a procedurally defective return renders the claim inadmissible ... Andhra Co-op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai. 3.1.2.4 The Doctrine of Mutuality requires strict satisfaction of three conditions: (i) Identity between contributors and beneficiaries. (ii) Absence of commercial intent. (iii) Exclusivity of mutual benefit. 3.1.2.5 In the present case, the records indicate that the appellant's receipts, including contributions

The Venus Parkland Co-Operative Housing Service Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)

Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (cited supra) wherein it was held as follows: "...14. The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore

Nautilus Premise Owners Association, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2146/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 57

result of financial investments, and it accrues regardless of the maintenance expenses incurred for the complex. 2. The appellant's reliance on the doctrine of mutuality is equally misplaced. The mutuality principle applies to contributions made by members for mutual benefit and the surplus arising from those contributions ... from Other Sources), and the deductions available u/s 57 are strictly limited to expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for generating that income. The doctrine of mutuality cannot be stretched to cover incorne earned Mm non-mutual sources like interest or rent. Judicial Precedents: 1. The appellant has relied

T vs. Charities, Maduraivs.ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.413/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Tvs Charities, The Ito, 7-B, Tvs Building West Veli Street, Exemptions Ward, Madurai-625 001. Madurai.

Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

payment of Income Tax is to be treated as application of its income for the charitable purposes. 10. Regarding the second issue i.e. doctrine of mutuality, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(E) without going into the activities and objects of the trust has made sweeping general

The DCIT, Cir-3(2) Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

ITA 1583/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

various Societies. The Honorable Supreme Court held that “in our opinion, unlike the surplus amount’ itself, which is exempt from tax under the doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee (Bangalore Club) from the member banks will not fall within the ambit of the mutuality principle ... satisfied Interest earned by assessee club on fixed deposits from its member banks would not be exempt from tax on basis of doctrine of mutuality. Judgment needs to be call back or appealed against or to be reviewed: The Hon. Gujarat High court in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-3(2), Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

ITA 1582/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

various Societies. The Honorable Supreme Court held that “in our opinion, unlike the surplus amount’ itself, which is exempt from tax under the doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee (Bangalore Club) from the member banks will not fall within the ambit of the mutuality principle ... satisfied Interest earned by assessee club on fixed deposits from its member banks would not be exempt from tax on basis of doctrine of mutuality. Judgment needs to be call back or appealed against or to be reviewed: The Hon. Gujarat High court in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari

Siddharatha Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

ITA 2113/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 4Section 58Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

benefit of section 80P of the Act on its main activities with members. 20.3 We are of the considered view that that the doctrine of mutuality is not destroyed merely because the club or organization earns income from incidental or minor transactions with non-members. What matters is whether

Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Society, Malbar Hill vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1888/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Vs. Addl./Jcit(A) – 5, Society, Kolkata C.S. No.1/722, Malabar Hill Division, A-88, Carmaichael Road, M.1, Dahanukar Marg , Mumbai - 400028 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ar Respondent By Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

there remains some surplus, it is not taxable and is categorized as an exemption under the “Principle of mutuality”. The essence of the doctrine of mutuality lies in the principle that what is returned is what a member contributes. A person cannot trade with himself; he cannot make taxable profit

Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Society, Malbar Hill vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1887/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Vs. Addl./Jcit(A) – 5, Society, Kolkata C.S. No.1/722, Malabar Hill Division, A-88, Carmaichael Road, M.1, Dahanukar Marg , Mumbai - 400028 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ar Respondent By Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

there remains some surplus, it is not taxable and is categorized as an exemption under the “Principle of mutuality”. The essence of the doctrine of mutuality lies in the principle that what is returned is what a member contributes. A person cannot trade with himself; he cannot make taxable profit

Association of Consulting Civil Engineers, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Guj-W-201-1, Rajkot

ITA 731/RJT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

This classification disregards the principle of mutuality, under which surplus income from mutual dealings is generally exempt from taxation. 2. The Doctrine of Mutuality and Its Relevance in Income Tax The principle of mutuality exempts income generated through transactions solely between members contributing to and benefiting equally from a common ... internal activities falls within the mutuality exemption. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. Applicability of Mutuality Principle: The appellant is a mutual association, and the doctrine of mutuality applies to it. The principle of mutuality has been affirmed in various judicial pronouncements, including: CIT v. Bankipur Club

Power Loom Development and Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1060/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25

Export Promotion Council following Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Bankipor Club Ltd. 226 ITR 97 and applying the doctrine of mutuality, assessee's receipts from non-rmembers and other sources such as interest income etc. are treated as income of the assessee during the year

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

Section 2(15)Section 45(1)Section 6

principles of mutuality and even by following the principles of mutuality, the income of the Appellant Assessee is exempt from taxation. The doctrine of mutuality traces its origin from the basic principle that a man cannot engage into a business with himself. For that reason, it is deemed

The Jyoti Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Ward, Nahan

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 162/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

various Societies. The Honorable Supreme Court held that "in our opinion, unlike the surplus amount' itself, which is exempt from tax under the doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee (Bangalore Club) from the member banks will not fall within the ambit of the mutuality principle

The Jyoti Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Ward, Nahan

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 161/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

various Societies. The Honorable Supreme Court held that "in our opinion, unlike the surplus amount' itself, which is exempt from tax under the doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee (Bangalore Club) from the member banks will not fall within the ambit of the mutuality principle