Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. To be consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of the assessees.

9. The Ld. AR also made an alternative plea that the assessee is lending money only to its members. Being so, applying the concept of mutuality, the total income of the assessee has to be exempt from tax.

However, we find that this argument of the assessee is also devoid of merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this mutuality concept. Similar issue came up for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., 53 ITR 241 (SC) wherein it was held that if the profits are distributed to shareholders as shareholders, the principle of mutuality is not satisfied. A shareholder in the assessee-company is entitled to participate in the profits without contributing to the funds of the company by taking loans. He is entitled to receive dividend as long as he held shares. He did not have to fulfil any other condition. His position is in no way different from a shareholder in a banking company, limited by shares. Indeed, the position of the assessee is no different from an ordinary bank except that it lends money and receives dividend from its shareholders which does not by itself make its income any the less income from business. The same judgment was followed in the case of CIT vs. Arcot Dhanasekhara Nidhi Ltd., 59 ITR 480 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dharmavaram Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund Ltd., 67 ITR 673 (AP) and CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P) Ltd., 69 ITR 278. Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kottayam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 172 ITR 443(Ker.) where it was held as under: