TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in all the appeals. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 690 of 2005. 2. Delay of 147 days in refiling ITA No. 690 of 2005 is condoned. 3. ITA No. 690 of 2005 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 376/CHANDI/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98. All the appeals except ITA Nos. 209, 295, 553, 883 of 2008 and 331 of 2015 were admitted by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2007 for determination of the following substantial question of law:- "Whether in the facts and circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as admitted by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2015 for determination of the substantial questions of law as referred to in para 6 of the appeal which are to the following effect:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee club is a mutual concern disregarding the finding of the A.O. that the financial and administrative control over the assessee club is in the hands of HUDA and that there is no identity between the contributors and the participants of the assessee club? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in treating the charges received from non-member guests as not liable to tax? iii) Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal of the revenue following its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 8. The primary dispute that arises for adjudication in these appeals relates to whether the principle of mutuality would be applicable in the present case or not? 9. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that there was no concept of mutuality that arises in these cases and, therefore, the Tribunal had erred in applying the doctrine of mutuality in the case of the assessee. Reliance was placed upon clause 5(d) of the Memorandum of Association which is as under:- "5(d).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in incidental issues as well which arise for consideration. 11. On the other hand, besides supporting the order passed by the Tribunal, the contentions of learned counsel for the revenue were opposed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC), Chelmsford Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC) of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Haryana C.M. Relief Fund (2009) 309 ITR 275 (P&H), Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 525 (Delhi) and Karnataka High Court in Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. Deputy Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atrix keeping in view the memorandum or articles of association, rules of membership, rules of the organization etc. However, it cannot be construed myopically. In some situations, the benefit may be evident directly in the short run, in others, they may be accruable to an organization indirectly, in the long run and the space must be made for both such forms of interactions between the organization and its member; (iii) Further, there must be no scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund made by them which could only be expended or returned to themselves and it is a difficult question of fact that at what point mutuality ends and commerciality begins. 14. We find that the Tribunal had not recorded any definite findin....