<?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>1964 (5) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49379</link>
    <description>The principle of mutuality applies only where the same persons contribute to a common fund and participate in the surplus in the same character. A company limited by shares may still earn taxable profits from members as shareholders, and confinement of dealings to members does not by itself create mutuality. On the facts, the identity between contributors and participators was incomplete because shareholders received profits qua shareholders, so the receipts were assessable as business income under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court also noted that a High Court had no separate jurisdiction to direct direct refund of a reference fee deposited by the assessee; such relief could arise only through costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (5) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49379</link>
      <description>The principle of mutuality applies only where the same persons contribute to a common fund and participate in the surplus in the same character. A company limited by shares may still earn taxable profits from members as shareholders, and confinement of dealings to members does not by itself create mutuality. On the facts, the identity between contributors and participators was incomplete because shareholders received profits qua shareholders, so the receipts were assessable as business income under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court also noted that a High Court had no separate jurisdiction to direct direct refund of a reference fee deposited by the assessee; such relief could arise only through costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>