← All Phrases

“mutuality principle”

Judicial DoctrinesMutualityMutuality54 judgments

NAVATHARANGINI MAHILA PODUPU PARASPARA SAHAKARA PARIMITHA SAMITHI,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.991/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Navatharangini Mahila Podupu Paraspara The Income Tax Sahakara Parimitha Officer, Ward-2, Vs. Samithi, Warangal. Warangal. Pin – 506 132. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaecn6799N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms V Koteswaramma, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: MS V Koteswaramma, Sr. AR
Section 140Section 253

applicable and that the respondent/assessee shall be entitled to exemption/benefit under section 80(P)(2) even otherwise the appellant samithi is covered by the mutuality principle and accordingly the income of the samithi is not taxable. 5.0. From the above it is seen that the contention of the assessee

MARATHI BANDHKAM VYA vs. AYIK ASSOCIATION,PUNEVS.ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1),PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2310/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

held that interest income earned from fixed deposits in banks by clubs is taxable. The involvement of third parties, such as banks, breaches the mutuality principle, making the income derived from such transactions taxable. This decision reiterated that mutuality applies only to transactions within the mutual entity and does

SMT. URMILA DHELIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

doctrine of mutuality, the amount of interest earned by the assessee from the afore noted four banks will not fall within the ambit of mutuality principle and will therefore, be exigible to income tax in the hands.\n6.4. Hence, the activity of entering into an agreement for re- development

MAHILANIDHI SOUHARDA LIMITED ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment\nyears 2018-19 and 2020-21 are allowed

ITA 1526/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

providing credit facilities, claimed deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from deposits. The Assessing Officer denied this deduction, citing a violation of the mutuality principle due to the presence of nominal members who did not share profits or participate in governance. The CIT(A) upheld the denial.", "held

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COIMBATORE CITY TAMILNADU POLICE CANTEEN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2069/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44Section 44A

Income-tax\nAct. It was submitted that the AO had accepted the assessee's return of income,\nwhich declared ‘Nil' income under the mutuality principle. Conversely, the Id.DR\nargued that the turnover of the assessee exceeded the prescribed limits under\nSection 44AB, thereby necessitating a mandatory audit, and the failure

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 491/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

pointed out that the following receipts the assessee received are from non-members and therefore the said receipts cannot be exempt income as "Mutuality Principle" is not attracted for the receipts like (1) ARN Fees (Rs. 1894,40 Lakhs) (2) ARN Data fees & Due diligence fee (Rs. 1.00 Lakh

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 48/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

pointed out that the following receipts the assessee received are from non-members and therefore the said receipts cannot be exempt income as "Mutuality Principle" is not attracted for the receipts like (1) ARN Fees (Rs. 1894,40 Lakhs) (2) ARN Data fees & Due diligence fee (Rs. 1.00 Lakh

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 47/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

pointed out that the following receipts the assessee received are from non-members and therefore the said receipts cannot be exempt income as "Mutuality Principle" is not attracted for the receipts like (1) ARN Fees (Rs. 1894,40 Lakhs) (2) ARN Data fees & Due diligence fee (Rs. 1.00 Lakh

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE CHEMBUR GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 46/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

pointed out that the following receipts the assessee received are from non-members and therefore the said receipts cannot be exempt income as "Mutuality Principle" is not attracted for the receipts like (1) ARN Fees (Rs. 1894,40 Lakhs) (2) ARN Data fees & Due diligence fee (Rs. 1.00 Lakh

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

profit and loss account and utilized for general purposes, some of which extended benefits beyond members. These circumstances negate the exclusivity required under mutuality principles. 3.1.3 Based on the above considerations, the addition of Rs. 14,10,031 under the head "Income from Business" by the CPC was validly made

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)

Rs.25,36,210/- in respect of interest received on Fixed Deposit (FD) for the reason that this income was not within the ambit of mutuality principle and the assessee had wrongly set-off the maintenance expense Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Venus Parkland Co-operative Housing Service Society

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

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. In the present case, the income in question ... case, the expenses incurred were directly related to the maintenance of members' houses, and the income earned was derived Mm the members' contributions. The mutuality principle applied because the income was entirely internal and derived from the association's members. Nautilus Premise Owners Association vs. ITO Asst. Year

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.582/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Vs. Pcit, 135, 1St Floor, Via House Gidc Char Valsad Rasta, Vapi – 396195, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv8289P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Arti N. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/08/2025

Section 147Section 263

effluent treatment charges received from members are integral and undistinguishable parts of activities of effluent treatment being carried out on the basis of mutuality principle held applicable to the case of the Appellant and accordingly, effluent treatment charges received from members have been held to be not taxable

SRI GURUDEVA VIVIDHODESHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

ITA 361/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

such as the type of members, their rights and duties, and whether the society is truly working for the benefit of its members on mutuality principles. These facts need to be properly examined by the Assessing Officer in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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 and will therefore, be exigible to Income-Tax in the hands of the assessee-club”. In this case, the surplus funds in the hands ... design of the second condition. Therefore, it stands violated. The facts at hand also fail to satisfy the third condition of the mutuality principle i.e. the impossibility that contributors should derive profits from contributions made by themselves to a fund which could only be expended or returned to themselves. This

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

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 and will therefore, be exigible to Income-Tax in the hands of the assessee-club”. In this case, the surplus funds in the hands ... design of the second condition. Therefore, it stands violated. The facts at hand also fail to satisfy the third condition of the mutuality principle i.e. the impossibility that contributors should derive profits from contributions made by themselves to a fund which could only be expended or returned to themselves. This

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, 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)

consulting civil engineers. It is a non-trading and a non-profit organization and does not share the income. Thus the rules of mutuality principle are fully applicable to this AOP. It has filed return of income as per above details for the captioned year. The income consists of Interest ... members in mutual interest. Therefore, it cannot be considered taxable income. To reinforce this, we draw attention to significant judicial decisions supporting the mutuality principle CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 97 (SC): The Supreme Court held that a club or association not formed for profit, and engaging

MOORTHEDARARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,MOORTHEDARARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, we set aside the findings of the Ld

ITA 2278/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CA
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both the authorities had failed to consider that the mutuality principle is no longer a good reason Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 2275 to 2278/Bang/2024 after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

MOORTHEDARARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, we set aside the findings of the Ld

ITA 2277/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CA
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both the authorities had failed to consider that the mutuality principle is no longer a good reason Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 2275 to 2278/Bang/2024 after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

MOORTHEDARARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, we set aside the findings of the Ld

ITA 2276/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna Kantila, CA
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both the authorities had failed to consider that the mutuality principle is no longer a good reason Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 2275 to 2278/Bang/2024 after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3