<?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>2013 (9) TMI 411 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236979</link>
    <description>A co-operative housing society&#039;s transfer fees and TDR premium were examined against the principle of mutuality. Mutuality requires identity between contributors and participants, use of funds for common purposes, and no profit motive; on the stated facts, the society&#039;s commercial character, transferable and monetisable member rights, and substantial benefit to non-members broke that identity. Transfer fees could qualify only up to the notified ceiling, but the TDR premium fell outside mutuality and was taxable. Deduction of expenses was also denied because no direct nexus was shown between the claimed expenditure and the impugned receipts, and the amounts represented application of income rather than deductible outgoings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 411 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236979</link>
      <description>A co-operative housing society&#039;s transfer fees and TDR premium were examined against the principle of mutuality. Mutuality requires identity between contributors and participants, use of funds for common purposes, and no profit motive; on the stated facts, the society&#039;s commercial character, transferable and monetisable member rights, and substantial benefit to non-members broke that identity. Transfer fees could qualify only up to the notified ceiling, but the TDR premium fell outside mutuality and was taxable. Deduction of expenses was also denied because no direct nexus was shown between the claimed expenditure and the impugned receipts, and the amounts represented application of income rather than deductible outgoings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>