Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.76 seconds)M/S. Bangalore Club vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 14 January, 2013
35. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances
of the case, in our considered view, the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Club
(supra), is applicable on the facts of the instant case and
we are thus inclined to hold that rent in question which
is given to the assessee-Club by Reliance Industries
Limited towards providing the Office space exclusively
used for carrying out the business activity of 'RIL' is not
having any nexus with any of the club activities, which
are regularly carried out for its members and, therefore,
principle of mutuality will not apply on the said rental
income and the same should be taxed as Income from
House Property. Accordingly the issue remanded is
decided against the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bier vs M/S. Bankipur Club Ltd on 8 May, 1997
As far as the applicability of this
judgment on the facts of the instant case are concerned,
we find that the same is not applicable because the issue
before us relates to taxability of rental income received
from corporate member for providing office space and not
towards any Club facility equally used by all the
members and since this issue was not before the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Bankipur Club Limited (supra),
the same is not applicable on the facts of the instant
case. Therefore, the analogy drawn by ld. Counsel for the
assessee that alleged rent has been finally applied for the
51
ITA No. 1340/KOL/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)
ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10)
ITA No. 837/KOL/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)
ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12)
ITA No. 2491/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13)
The Saturday Club Limited
use of Club member fails because the issue is about the
taxability of income and not its application.
Section 56 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd on 7 May, 1964
33. An almost similar issue arose in Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit
Fund Ltd. case (supra). The facts in that case were that the
assessee, namely, Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., was
an incorporated company limited by shares. Since 1938, the
nominal capital of the assessee was Rs.33,00,000/- divided into
shares of Rs.1/- each. It carried on banking business restricted to
its shareholders, i.e., the shareholders were entitled to participate
in its various recurring deposit schemes or obtain loans on
security. Recurring deposits were obtained from members for fixed
amounts to be contributed monthly by them for a fixed number of
months as stipulated at the end of which a fixed amount was
returned to them according to published tables. The amount so
returned, covered the compound interest of the period. These
recurring deposits constituted the main source of funds of the
42
ITA No. 1340/KOL/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)
ITA No. 339/KOL/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10)
ITA No. 837/KOL/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)
ITA No. 2377/KOL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12)
ITA No. 2491/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13)
The Saturday Club Limited
assessee for advancing loans. Such loans were restricted only to
members who had, however, to offer substantial security therefor,
by way of either the paid up value of their recurring deposits, if
any, or immovable properties within a particular district. Out of
the interest realised by the assessee on the loans which
constituted its main income, interest on the recurring deposits
aforesaid was paid as also all the other outgoings and expenses
of management and the balance amount was divided among the
members pro rata according to their share-holdings after making
provision for reserves, etc., as required by the Memorandum or
Articles aforesaid. It was not necessary for the shareholders, who
were entitled to participate in the profits to either take loans or
make recurring deposits.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 8 vs M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. on 11 November, 2022
In Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (supra), this Court made
similar observations, holding that it is not always the case that a
legal entity cannot make profits out of its members. It held as
follows :
M/S. Chelmsford Club vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 2 March, 2000
"Thereafter, Mr. Murarka took us through several other decisions
on this point, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bankipur
Club Ltd. reported in 226 ITR 97, Chelmsford Ford v.
Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 289 ITR 89, Bangalore
Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 350 ITR 509 and
Saturday Club Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell
reported in (2005) Cal LT 575.