2013 (12) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, heard combinedly and disposed of this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the Revenue's appeal ITA No.2999/M/2012 and the grounds raised in this appeal read as under: "a) Whether on the facts, circumstances and in laws, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the share transfer fees of Rs. 30,00,000/- received by the assessee company, on transfer of flats, as exempt from income tax, on principle of mutuality? b) Whether on the facts, circumstances and in the law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the nominee occupancy charges of Rs. 24,25,000/- received by the assessee from its non-members (tenants) are covered by the concept of mutuality. c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e been consistently decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. In one of such orders passed for the immediately preceding AY i.e., 2007-2008, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 21.10.2011 passed in ITA No. 6381/M/2010 has held that transfer fees received by the company being a mutual concern, whether from out coming or incoming members is not liable to tax because of principle of mutuality. The Tribunal also held that the refundable SD having been collected by the assessee company from its members are also exempt from tax as the principles of mutuality are clearly applicable to the said charges. As regard the nominee occupancy charges, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Arising from I.T.A. No.2999/M/2012) 7. This Cross Objection raised by the assessee on 20.5.2013, is against the order of the CIT (A)-9, Mumbai dated 6.2.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this Cross Objection, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The ITO-5(1)(4), Mumbai erred in stating that the nominee occupancy charges are received from non-members. 2. Your respondents submits that the CIT (A)-9 erred in including in the total income, the interest income of Rs. 29,40,721/-." 8. Ground no.1 relates to the nominee occupancy charges received from nonmembers. This ground is exactly similar to that of ground no.2 raised by the Revenue and the same is adjudicated by us in the above para 5 of this....