<?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>2012 (9) TMI 997 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179403</link>
    <description>Receipts collected by a co-operative housing society from its own members as transfer fees and voluntary contributions for common amenities were treated as mutual receipts and not taxable income. The relevant test was whether the amounts arose from dealings among identifiable members within a mutual arrangement, with no commerciality or profit motive, and the society&#039;s activities remained confined to maintenance and member amenities under its bye-laws. Applying the binding jurisdictional precedent, the earlier contrary view was distinguished because mutuality had not been fully considered there. The addition was deleted and the receipts were held exempt under the principle of mutuality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:08:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 997 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179403</link>
      <description>Receipts collected by a co-operative housing society from its own members as transfer fees and voluntary contributions for common amenities were treated as mutual receipts and not taxable income. The relevant test was whether the amounts arose from dealings among identifiable members within a mutual arrangement, with no commerciality or profit motive, and the society&#039;s activities remained confined to maintenance and member amenities under its bye-laws. Applying the binding jurisdictional precedent, the earlier contrary view was distinguished because mutuality had not been fully considered there. The addition was deleted and the receipts were held exempt under the principle of mutuality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>