Transfer fees received by Co-operative Housing Society held taxable, as mutuality was deemed to not exist post-transfer. Upheld Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax's decision.

The court held that transfer fees received by a Co-operative Housing Society were taxable as mutuality did not exist due to the change in ownership upon transfer. The judgment upheld the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax's decision and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the transfer fee was taxable following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of transfer fees received by a Co-operative Housing Society under the principle of mutuality for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Contention: The Co-operative Housing Society received transfer fees on the transfer of plots during the assessment years. The society contended that the transfer fee is not taxable under the principle of mutuality, citing relevant case laws.

2. Arguments by the Assessee: The counsel for the assessee argued that the transfer fee should not be taxed as it falls under the concept of mutuality. Case laws such as CIT v. Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and CIT v. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. were relied upon to support this argument.

3. Revenue's Position: The revenue contended that mutuality does not apply in this case and referred to the decision in CIT v. Presidency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and a Tribunal decision in Sea Face Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. where mutuality was not applied.

4. Principle of Mutuality: The judgment discussed the principle of mutuality, emphasizing that contributors to a common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus, and there must be complete identity between contributors and participators to exclude the surplus from being considered income.

5. Legal Precedents: Various legal precedents were cited to explain the concept of mutuality, including the requirement for complete identity between contributors and participators to exclude surplus from taxation.

6. Decision: The judgment analyzed the facts and held that the transfer fee received by the society is taxable as mutuality did not exist due to the change in ownership upon transfer. The judgment upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and dismissed the appeals.

7. Conclusion: The judgment concluded that as there was no identity between contributors and participators due to the change in ownership upon transfer, the transfer fee received by the society was deemed taxable, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court.

In summary, the judgment focused on the application of the principle of mutuality in determining the taxability of transfer fees received by a Co-operative Housing Society, ultimately ruling that the transfer fee was taxable as mutuality was deemed not to exist in the circumstances of the case.

---