<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (1) TMI 607 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117718</link>
    <description>Transfer fees and betterment charges collected by a co-operative premises society on transfer of flats were held taxable as revenue income. The Tribunal treated the nomenclature of the payment as immaterial and focused on substance: the amounts were paid by transferees as a condition for admission and transfer, so the identity between contributor and participant required for mutuality was absent. It also held that the Maharashtra ceiling on transfer charges applied to flats and tenements and could not be avoided by a premises society. Because the collections exceeded the prescribed limit, the receipts were not protected as capital receipts under mutuality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 607 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117718</link>
      <description>Transfer fees and betterment charges collected by a co-operative premises society on transfer of flats were held taxable as revenue income. The Tribunal treated the nomenclature of the payment as immaterial and focused on substance: the amounts were paid by transferees as a condition for admission and transfer, so the identity between contributor and participant required for mutuality was absent. It also held that the Maharashtra ceiling on transfer charges applied to flats and tenements and could not be avoided by a premises society. Because the collections exceeded the prescribed limit, the receipts were not protected as capital receipts under mutuality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>