Income-tax Officer, Mumbai v. Venkatesh Premises Cooperative  Society Ltd
[Citation -2018-LL-0312-37]

Citation 2018-LL-0312-37
Appellant Name Income-tax Officer, Mumbai
Respondent Name Venkatesh Premises Cooperative  Society Ltd.
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/03/2018
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags principle of mutuality • housing society • mutual benefit • profit motive • surplus fund • common fund • co-operative society • non-occupancy charge • transfer charge
Bot Summary: Such receipts will not be exigible to tax so long as the doctrine of mutuality stood satisfied by 8 commonality of identity between the contributors and the participants, and the contribution by the members was utilised for the common benefit of all the members. Once a person was admitted to membership, the members forming a class, and the identity of the individual member being irrelevant, the principle of mutuality was automatically attracted. The receipt essentially was from a member and the fact that for convenience, part of it may have been paid by the transferee, was irrelevant as ultimately the amount was utilised for the mutual benefit of the members including the fresh inductee member. From the members of the clubs were only for/towards charges for the privileges, conveniences and amenities provided to the members, which they were entitled to as per the rules and regulations of the respective clubs. The entire contribution originates in its members and is expended only in furtherance of the object of the Association for the benefit of the members. Contribution to the common amenity fund taken from a member disposing property is similarly utilised for meeting sudden and regular heavy repairs to ensure continuous and proper hazard free maintenance of the properties of the society which ultimately enures to the enjoyment, benefit and safety of the members. The surplus, if any, from the business was not shared by the members but was used for providing better facilities to the members.

REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2706 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 30194/2010) INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VENKATESH PREMISES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. .RESPONDENT(S) with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3271 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3272 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8741 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2708 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2707 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 30195/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2713 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32914/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2710 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32913/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2709 OF 2018 Signature Not Verified (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32063/2010) Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2711 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32065/2010) Date: 2018.03.13 15:46:41 IST Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2712 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34087/2010) 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2716 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35120/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2714 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32918/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2715 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2717 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 128/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2728 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 16967/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2718 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 133/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2720 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 367/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2721 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 370/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2719 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 378/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2722 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2623/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2724 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2745/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2726 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4096/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2723 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2744/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2725 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3283/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2727 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5382/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2729 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17102/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2730 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17667/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2731 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19992/2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2732 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19993/2012) 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2733 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17428/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2734 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29755/2013) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2735 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17430/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2736 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17431/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2740 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 37702/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2739 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 36157/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2737 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34865/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2738 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34866/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2741 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4122/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2742 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4126/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2743 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12234/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2766 2767 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6582 6583/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14603/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2747 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19340/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2744 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18935/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2768 2769 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6585 6586 @ Diary No(s). 14672/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2771 2772 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6587 6588/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14675/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2770 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6589/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14674/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2746 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18944/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2745 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18943/2017) 3 2765 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). (arising out of SLP(C)No.6550/2018 @ Diary No(s). 18867/2017) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all Special Leave Petitions. 2. common question of law arises for consideration in this batch of appeals, whether certain receipts by co operative societies, from its members i.e. non occupancy charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other charges, are exempt from income tax based on doctrine of mutuality. challenge is based on premise that such receipts are in nature of business income, generating profits and surplus, having element of commerciality and therefore exigible to tax. assessee in Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015 assails finding that such receipts, to extent they were beyond limits specified in 4 Government notification dated 09.08.2001 issued under Section 79 of Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) was exigible to tax falling beyond mutuality doctrine. 3. primary facts, for better appreciation shall be noticed from SLP (C) No.30194 of 2010. assessing officer held that receipt of non occupancy charges by society from its members, to extent that it was beyond 10% of service charges/maintenance charges permissible under notification dated 09.08.2001, stands excluded from principle of mutuality and was taxable. order was upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that notification dated 09.08.2001 was applicable to co operative housing societies only and did not apply to premises society. It further held that transfer fee paid by transferee member was exigible to tax as transferee did not have status of member at time of such payment and, therefore, principles of mutuality did not apply. High Court set 5 aside finding that payment by transferee member was taxable while upholding taxability of receipt beyond that specified in government notification. 4. Shri K.R. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue in all appeals, submitted that receipts were exigible to tax no sooner that mutuality came to end and receipts had element of profit, also generating surplus, rendering commerciality to nature of activity. benefit of common identity between contributors and participants could not alone be final test. Tribunal had correctly held that transferee not being member at time of payment, doctrine of mutuality had no application to such receipts. principle of mutuality could not be invoked to prevent taxability of high value receipts by society selling properties and then inducting such purchasers as members. validity of notification dated 09.08.2001 having been upheld by Bombay High Court in New India Co operative Housing Society vs. State of Maharashtra, 6 2013 (2) MHLJ 666, any receipt by society beyond that permissible in law under notification, was not only illegal, but also amounted to rendering of services for profit attracting element of commerciality and thus was taxable. It stands to reason that if society levied maintenance charge upon resident member at rate of Rs.1.35 per sq.ft./p.m. and charged much higher rate of Rs.7/ per sq.ft./p.m. as non occupancy charges from others, society was acting commercially to earn profit. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 96 = (1964) 8 SCR 204, Chelmsford Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 3 SCC 214. 5. Sri Radhakrishnan, sought to invoke Article 43B of Constitution of India mandating professional management of co operative societies, to justify taxability of receipts beyond that permissible under government notification. Reliance was further placed on Article 243ZI to submit that economic participation had to be restricted to members and had no 7 application to transferee who was not member, rendering receipt from them sans mutuality taxable. 6. submission on behalf of respondents shall be considered cumulatively for convenience except to extent necessary. Relying on Mittal Court Premises Co operative Society Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, (2010) 320 ITR 414 (Bom), it was submitted that notification dated 09.08.2001 was restricted in its application to housing co operative societies only and had no application to premises Society. Any receipt by latter beyond same was thus not exigible to tax on that ground. 7. receipt by housing co operative society of amount beyond that mentioned in notification dated 09.08.2001, if it was contrary to law, would be actionable at instance of person required to pay such charges as was case in New India Co operative Housing Society (supra). Such receipts will not be exigible to tax so long as doctrine of mutuality stood satisfied by 8 commonality of identity between contributors and participants, and contribution by members was utilised for common benefit of all members. 8. receipt of transfer fee before induction to membership under some of bye laws shall not be liable to tax as money was returned in event that person was not admitted to membership. appropriation by society took place only after admission to membership. Once person was admitted to membership, members forming class, and identity of individual member being irrelevant, principle of mutuality was automatically attracted. receipt essentially was from member and fact that for convenience, part of it may have been paid by transferee, was irrelevant as ultimately amount was utilised for mutual benefit of members including fresh inductee member. 9. Likewise, non occupancy charges were levied for purpose of general maintenance of premises of Society and provision of other facilities and general amenities to 9 members. fact that such members who were not in self occupation may have had to pay at higher rate was irrelevant so long as receipts were utilised for benefit of members as class. It is not case of Revenue that such receipts had been utilised for any purpose other than common benefit of members. Even if any amount was left over as surplus at end of financial year after meeting maintenance and other common charges, that would constitute surplus fund of society to be used for common benefit of members and to meet heavy repairs and other contingencies and will not partake character of profit or commerciality so as to be exigible to tax. 10. Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax 21 vs. Jai Hind Co operative House Construction Society, (2012) 349 ITR 541 (Bom), it was contended that premium receipts by housing society for allowing member to construct using extra FSI was also not taxable on principles of mutuality as receipts were utilised by society for maintenance and 10 infrastructure including to defray extra burden on account of additional FSI constructed. 11. Fresh construction by society itself, utilising extra FSI available, with grant of occupancy rights only to member who may have had to pay more as membership fees than existing member, will likewise not detract from principle of mutuality as contribution was ultimately to be used for maintenance, repairs and facilities to members in society including additional construction. There could be no bifurcation between receipts and costs to deny exemption to extent paid by new members to qualify same as non mutual. Crucially, admission to membership preceded payment and allotment of premises was done by draw of lottery. 12. It was next submitted that every receipt could not ipso facto be classified as income, relying on Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC). Referring to CIT vs. Royal 11 Western India Turf Club Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 85, it was submitted that so long as three tests to determine mutuality and commonality of interests were met, there could not be exigiblity to tax under general understanding of doctrine of mutuality that person could not make profit from himself. Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar vs. M/s. Bankipur Club Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC ) = (1997) 5 SCC 394 and Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2013) 350 ITR 509 (SC)= (2013) 5 SCC 509. 13. We have considered submissions on behalf of parties. 14. doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on theory that person cannot make profit from himself. amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable. Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act defines taxable income. income of co operative society from business is taxable 12 under Section 2(24)(vii) and will stand excluded from principle of mutuality. essence of principle of mutuality lies in commonality of contributors and participants who are also beneficiaries. contributors to common fund must be entitled to participate in surplus and participators in surplus are contributors to common fund. law envisages complete identity between contributors and participants in this sense. principle postulates that what is returned is contributed by member. Any surplus in common fund shall therefore not constitute income but will only be increase in common fund meant to meet sudden eventualities. common feature of mutual organizations in general can be stated to be that participants usually do not have property rights to their share in common fund, nor can they sell their share. Cessation from membership would result in loss of right to participate without receiving financial benefit from cessation of membership. 13 15. doctrine of mutuality based on common law is predicated on principles enunciated in Styles vs. New York Life Insurance Company, (1889) 2 T.C. 460, by Lord Watson in House of Lords in following words: When number of individuals agree to contribute funds for common purpose, such as payment of annuities or of capital sums, to some or all of them, on occurrence of events certain or uncertain, and stipulate that their contributions, so far as not required for that purpose, shall be repaid to them, I cannot conceive why they should b regarded as traders, or why contributions returned to them should be regarded as profits. 16. In Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra), considering surplus of receipts over expenditure generated from facilities extended by club to its members and its exemption from tax on principles of mutuality, it was observed : 20 ..In all these cases, appellate tribunal as also High Court have found that amounts received by clubs were for supply of drinks, refreshments or other goods as also letting out of building for rent or amounts received by way of admission fees, periodical 14 subscription etc. from members of clubs were only for/towards charges for privileges, conveniences and amenities provided to members, which they were entitled to as per rules and regulations of respective clubs. It has also been found that different clubs realised various sums on above counts only to afford to their members usual privileges, advantages, conveniences and accommodation. In other words, services offered on above counts were not done with any profit motive and were not tainted with commerciality. facilities were offered only as matter of convenience for use of members (and their friends, if any, availing of facilities occasionally). 21. In light of above findings, it necessarily follows that receipts for various facilities extended by clubs to their members, as stated hereinabove as part of usual privileges, advantages and conveniences, attached to membership of club, cannot be said to be trading activity . surplus excess of receipts over expenditure as result of mutual arrangement, cannot be said to be income for purpose of Act. 17. In Bangalore Club (supra), after referring to Styles, doctrine of mutuality was explained further as follows : 8 ..The principle relates to notion that person cannot make profit from himself. amount received from oneself is not regarded as income and is therefore not subject to tax; only income which comes within definition of Section 2(24) of Act is subject to tax [income from business involving doctrine of mutuality is 15 denied exemption only in special cases covered under clause (vii) of Section 2(24) of Act]. concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to common fund, controlled by group, for common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue common purpose is said to be simply increase of common fund and as such neither considered income nor taxable .. common feature of mutual organisations in general and of licensed clubs in particular, is that participants usually do not have property rights to their share in common fund, nor can they sell their share. And when they cease to be members, they lose their right to participate without receiving financial benefit from surrender of their membership 18. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Common Effluent Treatment Plant, (Thane Belapur) Association, (2010) 328 ITR 362 (Bom), assessee, incorporated association under Section 25 of Companies Act, 1956 comprising of industries operating in Thane Belapur region, was set up with view to provide centralised treatment facility for industrial effluents in view of inability of each industrial unit to set up separate effluent treatment facility. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was), speaking for 16 Division Bench, applying principles of mutuality to surplus so generated not being exigible to tax, held : 10. .The income of assessee is contributed by its members. assessee has been formed specifically with object of providing common effluent facility to its members. income is not generated out of dealings with any third party. entire contribution originates in its members and is expended only in furtherance of object of Association for benefit of members. On these facts, both Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal were justified in coming to conclusion that surplus so generated falls within purview of doctrine of mutuality and was not exigible to tax . 19. proceedings in present appeals relate to different assessment years based on information gathered by Assessing Officer pursuant to notice under Section 133(6) of Income Tax Act. Transfer charges are payable by outgoing member. If for convenience, part of it is paid by transferee, it would not partake nature of profit or commerciality as amount is appropriated only after transferee is inducted as member. In event of non admission, amount is returned. moment 17 transferee is inducted as member principles of mutuality apply. Likewise, non occupancy charges are levied by society and is payable by member who does not himself occupy premises but lets it out to third person. charges are again utilised only for common benefit of facilities and amenities to members. Contribution to common amenity fund taken from member disposing property is similarly utilised for meeting sudden and regular heavy repairs to ensure continuous and proper hazard free maintenance of properties of society which ultimately enures to enjoyment, benefit and safety of members. These charges are levied on basis of resolutions passed by society and in consonance with its bye laws. receipts in present cases have indisputably been used for mutual benefit towards maintenance of premises, repairs, infrastructure and provision of common amenities. 20. Any difference in contributions payable by old members and fresh inductees cannot fall foul of law as sufficient classification exists. Membership forming class, 18 identity of individual member not being relevant, induction into membership automatically attracts doctrine of mutuality. If Society has surplus FSI available, it is entitled to utilise same by making fresh construction in accordance with law. Naturally such additional construction would entail extra charges towards maintenance, infrastructure, common facilities and amenities. If society first inducts new members who are required to contribute to common fund for availing common facilities, and then grants only occupancy rights to them by draw of lots, ownership remaining with society, receipts cannot be bifurcated into two segments of receipt and costs, so as to hold former to be outside purview of mutuality classifying it as income of society with commerciality. 21. Section 79A of Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act reads as follows: 79A. Government's power to give directions in public interest, etc. (1) If State Government, on receipt of report from Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied that in public interest or for purposes 19 of securing proper implementation of co operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by Government, or to secure proper management of business of Society generally, or for preventing affairs of Society being conducted in manner detrimental to interests of members or of depositors or creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of societies generally or to any Society or societies in particular, State Government may issue directions to them from time to time, and all societies or societies concerned, as case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) State Government may modify or cancel any directions issued under subsection (1), and in modifying or cancelling such directions may impose such conditions as it may deem fit. (3) Where Registrar is satisfied that any person was responsible for complying with any directions or modified directions issued to Society under sub sections (1) and (2) and he has failed without any good reason or justification, to comply with directions, Registrar may by order (a) if person is member of committee of Society, remove member from Committee and appoint any other person as member of committee for remainder of term of his office and declare him to be disqualified to be such member for period of six years from date of order: (b) if person is employee of Society, direct committee to remove such person from employment of Society forthwith, and if any member or members of committee, without 20 any good reason or justification, fail to comply with this order, remove members, appoint other persons as members and declare them disqualified as provided in clause (a) above: Provided that, before making any order under this sub section, Registrar shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to person or persons concerned and consult federal Society is affiliated. Any order made by Registrar under this section shall be final. 22. In New India Co operative Housing Society (supra), challenge by aggrieved was to transfer fee levied by society in excess of that specified in notification, which is completely different cause of action having no relevance to present controversy. It is not case of Revenue that such receipts have not been utilised for common benefit of those who have contributed to funds. 23. notification dated 09.08.2001 in relevant extract reads as follows: 21 ORDER In exercise of powers conferred upon State Government under Section 79 of Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 following orders are hereby issued in larger interests of people in State. 1) Xxxxxx 2) rate of premium to be charged for transfer Flat/Premises as well as rights and share in share capital/property of Co operative Housing Society by member in favour of another, should be determined at General Meeting of Society. 24. We do not find any reason to take view different from that taken by High Court, that notification dated 09.08.2001 is applicable only to co operative housing societies and has no application to premises society which consists of non residential premises. 25. Kumbakonam (supra), is distinguishable on its own facts. doctrine of mutuality was held to be inapplicable because members who had not contributed to surplus as customers were nevertheless entitled to participate and receive part of surplus. In Chelmsford Club (supra), it was held 22 that there was no profit motive or sharing of profits as such amongst members. surplus, if any, from business was not shared by members but was used for providing better facilities to members. There was clear identity between contributors and participators to fund and recipients thereof. 26. In result, all appeals preferred by Revenue are dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015 preferred by assessee society is allowed. ...J. (Rohinton Fali Nariman) ..J. (Navin Sinha) New Delhi, March 12, 2018. 23 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.10 SECTION IX SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A.No.2706/2018 @ SLP(C)No.30194/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11- 01-2010 in ITA No.680/2009 passed by High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A.No.3271/2012 (IX) C.A.No.3272/2012 (IX) C.A.No.3827/2012 (IX) C.A.No.1180/2015 (III) C.A.No.2997/2017 (III) C.A.No.8741/2017 (III) C.A.No.2708/2018 in SLP(C)No.32061/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2707/2018 in SLP(C)No.30195/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2713/2018 in SLP(C)No.32914/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2710/2018 in SLP(C)No.32913/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2709/2018 in SLP(C)No.32063/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2711/2018 in SLP(C)No.32065/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2712/2018 in SLP(C)No.34087/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2716/2018 in SLP(C)No.35120/2010 (IX) 24 C.A.No.2714/2018 in SLP(C)No.32918/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2715/2018 in SLP(C)No.34061/2010 (IX) C.A.No.2717/2018 in SLP(C)No.128/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2728/2018 in SLP(C)No.16967/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2718/2018 in SLP(C)No.133/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2720/2018 in SLP(C)No.367/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2721/2018 in SLP(C)No.370/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2719/2018 in SLP(C)No.378/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2722/2018 in SLP(C)No.2623/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2724/2018 in SLP(C)No.2745/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2726/2018 in SLP(C)No.4096/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2723/2018 in SLP(C)No.2744/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2725/2018 in SLP(C)No.3283/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2727/2018 in SLP(C)No.5382/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2729/2018 in SLP(C)No.17102/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2730/2018 in SLP(C)No.17667/2011 (IX) C.A.No.2731/2018 in SLP(C)No.19992/2012 (IX) C.A.No.2732/2018 in SLP(C)No.19993/2012 (IX) C.A.No.2733/2018 in SLP(C)No.17428/2015 (IX) C.A.No.2734/2018 in SLP(C)No.29755/2013 (IX) C.A.No.2735/2018 in SLP(C)No.17430/2015 (IX) C.A.No.2736/2018 in SLP(C)No.17431/2015 (IX) C.A.No.2740/2018 in SLP(C)No.37702/2016 (IX) C.A.No.2739/2018 in SLP(C)No.36157/2016 (IX) 25 C.A.No.2737/2018 in SLP(C)No.34865/2016 (IX) C.A.No.2738/2018 in SLP(C)No.34866/2016 (IX) C.A.No.2741/2018 in SLP(C)No.4122/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2742/2018 in SLP(C)No.4126/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2743/2018 in SLP(C)No.12234/2017 (IX) C.A.Nos.2766-2767/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6582-6583/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14603/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2747/2018 in SLP(C)No.19340/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2744/2018 in SLP(C)No.18935/2017 (IX) C.A.Nos.2768-2769/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6585-6586/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14672/2017 (IX) C.A.Nos.2771-2772/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6587-6588/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14675/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2770/2018 @ SLP(C)No.6589/2018 @ Diary No(s).14674/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2746/2018 in SLP(C)No.18944/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2745/2018 in SLP(C)No.18943/2017 (IX) C.A.No.2765/2018 @ SLP(C)No.6550/2018 @ Diary No(s).18867/2017 (IX) Date : 12-03-2018 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,AOR Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Aor Mr. Shikhil Suri,Adv. Mr. Saswat Pattnaik,Adv. 26 For Respondent(s) Mr. Salil Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani,Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh,Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Kislaya Parashar,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel,Adv. Mr. Firasat Ali Siddiqi,Adv. Mr. A.D. Kumar,Adv. Mr. Anil Kr. Chopra,Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,AOR Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam,Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra,Adv. Ms. Manik Karanjawala,Adv. For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.,AOR Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan,Adv. For M/s. K.J. John & Co.,AOR Mr. S. C. Birla,AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,AOR Mrs. Shally Bhasin,AOR Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,AOR Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani,AOR Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR Mrs. V.D. Khanna,AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha pronounced Reportable judgment of Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and His Lordship. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all SLPs. 27 appeals preferred by Revenue are dismissed and Civil Appeal No.1180/2015 preferred by assessee-society is allowed in terms of signed Reportable judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sarita Purohit) (Suman Jain) Court Master Branch Officer (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on file) 28 Income-taxOfficer,Mumbai v. VenkateshPremisesCooperative SocietyLtd
Report Error