Caselaws for the concept of mutuality

This query is : Resolved

Share Report Follow Query Ask a Query

Chandra Kala

Chandra Kala (Querist)
Follow

17 December 2024 Caselaws of income tax for the concept of mutuality

Dhirajlal Rambhia online

Dhirajlal Rambhia online

(Expert)
Follow

18 December 2024 In the following cases where it was held that any income in form of contribution received from members of society or club is come under the concept of Mutuality and same is exempt under the provision of Income Tax Act. The first judgement is in the case of CIT Vs. Bankipur Club Ltd., 226 ITR p.97 (SC). It was held in this case that excess of receipts over expenditure received by club from facilities extended to its members as part of advantage attached to such membership, is not taxable as income. The second judgement is in the case of Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT, 243 ITR p.89 (SC). It was held in this case that (i) Income of a mutual concern is not assessable to tax, (ii) the charge of tax is on income from property and not on the property itself, and (iii) the income from property of a mutual concern is not assessable to tax. In the case of CIT Vs. National Sports Club of India (No.1), 230 ITR p.777 (Delhi), it was held that the rent receipt from members to whom rooms were let out by the assessee-club, which was a mutual concern, along with other facilities, was not taxable as income. The aforesaid view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Chelmsford Club Vs. CIT, 243 ITR p.89 (SC). The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Bus Operators Association [2013] 33 taxmann.com 568/[Two thousand twelve] 344 ITR 268 (Ker.), following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Ltd.(supra), held that where the assessee, an association of bus operators, was engaged in purchase and distribution of tyres, automobile spares, etc., to its own members and profit, if any, arising in such transactions went to its members, principle of mutuality applied to that case.

Dhirajlal Rambhia online

Dhirajlal Rambhia online

(Expert)
Follow

18 December 2024 The Supreme Court, while explaining the doctrine of mutuality in CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.12 relied upon Simon’s Taxes13 to observe as under:

“……it is settled law that if the persons carrying on a trade so in such a way that they and the customers are the same persons, no profits or gains are yielded by the trade for tax purposes and therefore, no assessment in respect of the trade can be made. Any surplus resulting from this form of trading represents only the extent to which the contributions of the participators have proved to be in excess of requirements. Such a surplus is regarded as their own money and returnable to them. In order that this exempting element of mutuality should exist it is essential that the profits should be capable of coming back at some time and in some form to the persons to whom the goods were sold or the services rendered…..”

A conspectus of these judgments make it abundantly clear that for the doctrine of mutuality to apply, the assessee has to demonstrate complete identity between the contributors to a fund and the participants in the surplus of that fund, and that business is not being conducted from a commercial perspective but to benefit its members.

You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now