REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2706 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 30194/2010)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS  

VENKATESH PREMISES COOPERATIVE  SOCIETY LTD. ….RESPONDENT(S)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3271 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3272 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8741 OF 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2708 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2707 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 30195/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2713 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32914/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2710 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32913/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2709 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32063/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2711 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32065/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2712 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34087/2010)

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2716 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35120/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2714 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32918/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2715 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2717 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 128/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2728 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 16967/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2718 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 133/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2720 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 367/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2721 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 370/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2719 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 378/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2722 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2623/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2724 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2745/2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2726 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4096/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2723 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2744/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2725 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3283/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2727 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5382/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2729 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17102/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2730 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17667/2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2731 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19992/2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2732 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19993/2012)

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2733 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17428/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2734 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29755/2013) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2735 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17430/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2736 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17431/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2740 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 37702/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2739 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 36157/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2737 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34865/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2738 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 34866/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2741 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4122/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2742 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4126/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2743 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12234/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2766­2767 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6582­6583/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14603/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2747 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19340/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2744 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18935/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2768­2769 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6585­6586 @ Diary No(s). 14672/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2771­2772 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.6587­6588/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14675/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2770 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6589/2018 @ Diary No(s). 14674/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).   2746    OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18944/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).   2745    OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18943/2017)

3

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).   2765    OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6550/2018 @ Diary No(s). 18867/2017)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Delay condoned.   Leave granted in all the Special Leave

Petitions.  

2. A common question of law arises for consideration in this

batch of appeals, whether certain receipts by co­operative

societies, from its members i.e. non­occupancy charges,

transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain

other charges, are exempt from income tax based on the

doctrine of mutuality.  The challenge is based on the premise

that such receipts are in the nature of business income,

generating profits and surplus, having an element of

commerciality and therefore exigible to tax.   The  assessee  in

Civil  Appeal  No.1180 of  2015 assails the finding that  such

receipts, to the extent they were beyond the limits specified in

4

the Government notification dated 09.08.2001  issued under

Section 79­A of  the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act,

1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was exigible to tax

falling beyond the mutuality doctrine.  

3. The primary facts, for better appreciation shall be noticed

from SLP  (C) No.30194 of 2010.   The assessing officer held

that receipt of non­occupancy charges by the society from its

members, to the extent that it was beyond 10% of the service

charges/maintenance charges permissible under the

notification dated 09.08.2001, stands excluded from the

principle of mutuality and was taxable.  The order was upheld

by the Commissioner of  Income Tax  (Appeals).  The Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the notification dated

09.08.2001 was applicable to  co­operative  housing  societies

only and did not apply to a premises society.   It further held

that the transfer fee paid by the transferee  member was

exigible to tax as the transferee did not have the status of a

member at the time of such payment and, therefore, the

principles  of  mutuality  did  not  apply.  The  High Court  set

5

aside the finding that payment by the transferee member was

taxable while upholding taxability of the receipt beyond that

specified in the government notification.  

4.  Shri K.R. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the Revenue in all the appeals,

submitted that the receipts were exigible to tax no sooner that

mutuality came to an end and the receipts had an element of

profit,  also generating a surplus, rendering commerciality to

the nature of the activity.   The benefit of a common identity

between the contributors and the participants could not alone

be the  final test.  The Tribunal  had correctly held that  the

transferee not being a member at  the time of  payment, the

doctrine of mutuality had no application to such receipts. The

principle of mutuality could not be invoked to prevent

taxability of high value receipts by a society selling properties

and then inducting such purchasers as  members.   The

validity of the notification dated 09.08.2001 having been

upheld  by the  Bombay  High  Court in  The New  India  Co­

operative Housing Society vs. The State of Maharashtra,

6

2013 (2) MHLJ 666, any receipt by the society beyond that

permissible in the law under the  notification,  was  not  only

illegal, but also amounted to rendering of services for profit

attracting an element of commerciality and thus was taxable.

It stands to reason that if the society levied  maintenance

charge  upon a resident  member  at the rate  of  Rs.1.35  per

sq.ft./p.m. and charged the much higher rate of Rs.7/­ per

sq.ft./p.m. as non­occupancy charges from others, the society

was acting commercially to earn profit. Reliance was placed on

Commissioner of Income Tax,  Madras vs.  Kumbakonam

Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 96 = (1964) 8 SCR

204,  Chelmsford Club vs.  Commissioner  of Income Tax,

(2000) 3 SCC 214.  

5. Sri Radhakrishnan, sought to invoke Article 43B of the

Constitution of India mandating professional management of

co­operative societies, to justify taxability of  receipts beyond

that permissible under the government notification. Reliance

was further placed on Article 243ZI to submit that economic

participation  had to  be restricted to  members and  had  no

7

application to a transferee who was not a member, rendering

receipt from them sans mutuality taxable.  

6. The  submission on behalf  of the respondents  shall  be

considered cumulatively for convenience except to the extent

necessary.  Relying  on  Mittal  Court  Premises Co­operative

Society Ltd.  vs. Income Tax Officer,  (2010)  320  ITR 414

(Bom), it was submitted that the notification dated 09.08.2001

was restricted in its application to housing co­operative

societies only and had no application to a premises Society.

Any receipt by the latter beyond the same was thus not

exigible to tax on that ground.  

7. The receipt by a housing co­operative society of an

amount beyond that mentioned in the notification dated

09.08.2001, if it was contrary to the law, would be actionable

at the instance of the person required to pay such charges as

was the case in  The New India Co­operative Housing

Society  (supra).   Such receipts will not be exigible to tax so

long as the doctrine of mutuality stood satisfied by

8

commonality of identity between the contributors and the

participants, and the contribution by the members was

utilised for the common benefit of all the members.   

8.  The receipt of transfer fee before induction to

membership under some of the bye­laws shall not be liable to

tax as the money was returned in the event that the person

was not admitted to membership.   The appropriation by the

society took place only after admission to membership.  Once

a person was admitted to membership, the members forming a

class, and the identity of the individual member being

irrelevant, the principle of mutuality was automatically

attracted.   The receipt essentially was from a member and the

fact that for convenience, part of it may have been paid by the

transferee, was irrelevant as ultimately the amount was

utilised for the mutual benefit of the members including the

fresh inductee member.  

9. Likewise, non­occupancy charges were levied for the

purpose of general maintenance of the premises of the Society

and provision of other facilities and general amenities to the

9

members.   The fact that such members who were not in self

occupation may have had to pay at a higher rate was

irrelevant so long as the receipts were utilised for the benefit of

the members as a class.   It is not the case of the Revenue that

such receipts had been utilised for any purpose other than the

common benefit of the members.  Even if any amount was left

over as surplus at the end of the financial year after meeting

maintenance and other common charges, that would

constitute surplus fund of the society to be used for the

common benefit of members and to meet heavy repairs and

other contingencies and will not partake the character of profit

or commerciality so as to be exigible to tax.

10. Relying on  Commissioner  of Income Tax­21  vs. Jai

Hind Co­operative House Construction Society, (2012) 349

ITR 541 (Bom), it was contended that premium receipts by a

housing society for allowing a member to construct using extra

FSI  was  also  not taxable  on principles  of  mutuality  as the

receipts were utilised by the society for  maintenance and

10

infrastructure including to defray the extra burden on account

of the additional FSI constructed.  

11.  Fresh construction by a society itself, utilising extra FSI

available,  with grant of  occupancy rights only  to a member

who may have had to pay more as membership fees than an

existing member, will likewise not detract from the principle of

mutuality as the contribution was ultimately to be used for the

maintenance, repairs and facilities to members in the society

including the additional construction.   There could be no

bifurcation between the receipts and costs to deny exemption

to the extent paid by the new members to qualify the same as

non­mutual. Crucially, the admission to membership preceded

the payment and allotment of premises was done by draw of

lottery.

12. It was next submitted that every receipt could not  ipso

facto  be classified  as income, relying  on  Commissioner  of

Income Tax, Mumbai vs. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P)

Ltd.,  (2005) 273 ITR  1 (SC).  Referring to  CIT vs.  Royal

11

Western India Turf Club Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 85, it was

submitted that so long as the three tests to determine

mutuality and commonality of interests were met, there could

not be exigiblity to tax under the general understanding of the

doctrine of mutuality that a person could not make a  profit

from himself.  Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of

Income Tax, Bihar vs. M/s. Bankipur Club Ltd., (1997) 226

ITR 97  (SC )  =  (1997)  5 SCC 394 and  Bangalore Club vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2013) 350 ITR

509 (SC)= (2013) 5 SCC 509.

13. We  have considered the submissions  on  behalf of the

parties.

14. The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law

principles, is  premised  on  the theory that  a  person cannot

make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself,

therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable.  Section

2(24) of the Income Tax Act defines taxable income. The

income of a co­operative society from business is taxable

12

under Section 2(24)(vii) and will stand excluded from the

principle of mutuality. The essence of the principle of

mutuality lies in the commonality of the contributors and the

participants who are also the beneficiaries.   The contributors

to the  common  fund must  be  entitled to  participate in the

surplus and the participators in the surplus are contributors

to the common fund.   The law envisages a complete identity

between the contributors and the participants in this sense.

The principle postulates that what is returned is contributed

by a member.   Any surplus in the common fund shall

therefore not constitute income but will only be an increase in

the common fund  meant to  meet sudden eventualities.  A

common  feature  of  mutual organizations in  general can  be

stated to be that the participants usually do not have property

rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell

their share.   Cessation from membership would result in the

loss of right to participate without receiving a financial benefit

from the cessation of the membership.  

13

15. The doctrine of mutuality based on common law is

predicated  on the  principles  enunciated in  Styles  vs.  New

York Life Insurance Company, (1889) 2 T.C. 460, by Lord

Watson in the House of Lords in the following words:

“When  a  number of individuals agree to contribute funds for  a  common purpose, such as the payment of annuities or of capital  sums, to some or all  of them, on the occurrence of events certain or uncertain, and stipulate that their contributions, so far as  not required for that  purpose, shall  be repaid to them, I cannot conceive why they should b regarded as traders, or why contributions returned to them should  be regarded  as profits.”

16.  In Bankipur Club Ltd.  (supra), considering the surplus

of receipts over expenditure generated from the facilities

extended by a club to its members and its exemption from tax

on principles of mutuality, it was observed :­  

“20……..In all these cases, the appellate tribunal as also the High Court have found that the amounts received by the clubs were for supply of drinks, refreshments or other goods  as also the letting out of building for rent or the amounts received by way of admission fees, periodical

14

subscription etc. from the  members  of the  clubs were  only for/towards charges for the  privileges, conveniences and amenities provided to the members,  which they were entitled to as per the rules and regulations of the respective clubs. It has also been found that different clubs realised various sums on the above counts only to afford to their  members the usual privileges, advantages, conveniences and accommodation. In other words, the services offered on the above counts were not done with any profit motive and were not tainted with commerciality. The facilities were offered only as a  matter of convenience for the use of the members (and their friends, if any, availing of the facilities occasionally).

21.  In the light of the above findings, it necessarily follows that the receipts for the various facilities extended by the clubs to their members, as stated hereinabove as part of the usual privileges, advantages and conveniences, attached to the membership of the club, cannot be said to be “a trading activity”. The surplus — excess of receipts over the expenditure  as a result of mutual arrangement, cannot be said to be “income” for the purpose of the Act.”

 17.  In Bangalore Club (supra), after referring to Styles, the

doctrine of mutuality was explained further as follows :­

“8………..The principle relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount  received  from oneself is  not regarded  as income and is therefore not subject to tax; only the income which comes within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act is subject to tax [income from business involving the doctrine of mutuality is

15

denied exemption only in special cases covered under clause (vii) of Section 2(24) of the Act]. The concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled by the group, for a common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue the common purpose is said to be simply an increase of the common fund and as such neither considered income nor taxable……..  A common feature of mutual organisations in general and of licensed clubs in particular, is that participants usually do not have property rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell their share. And  when they cease to be  members, they lose their right to participate without receiving a financial benefit from the surrender of their membership……”

18.  In  The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Common

Effluent  Treatment  Plant, (Thane  Belapur)  Association,

(2010) 328 ITR 362 (Bom), the assessee, an incorporated

association under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956

comprising of industries operating in the Thane­Belapur

region, was set up with a view to provide a centralised

treatment facility for industrial effluents in view of the inability

of each industrial unit to set up a separate effluent treatment

facility. Chandrachud, J.  (as he then was), speaking for the

16

Division  Bench,  applying the  principles  of  mutuality to the

surplus so generated not being exigible to tax, held :­

“10. ….The income of the assessee is contributed by its  members. The assessee has been formed specifically with the object of providing a common effluent facility to its members. The income is not generated out of dealings with any third party. The entire contribution originates in its members and is expended only in furtherance of the object of the Association for the benefit of the  members. On these facts, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that the surplus so generated falls within the purview of the doctrine of mutuality and was not exigible to tax….”

19.  The proceedings in the present appeals relate to different

assessment years based on information gathered by the

Assessing Officer pursuant to notice under Section 133(6) of

the Income  Tax  Act.  Transfer charges  are  payable  by the

outgoing member.  If for convenience, part of it is paid by the

transferee, it would not partake the nature of profit or

commerciality  as the amount  is  appropriated only  after the

transferee is inducted  as  a  member.   In the  event  of  non­

admission, the amount is returned. The moment the

17

transferee is inducted as a member the principles of mutuality

apply. Likewise, non­occupancy charges are levied by the

society  and is  payable  by  a  member  who  does  not  himself

occupy the premises but  lets  it  out to a third person.   The

charges are again  utilised only for the common benefit of

facilities and amenities to the members.   Contribution to the

common amenity fund taken from a member disposing

property is similarly utilised for meeting sudden and regular

heavy  repairs to  ensure  continuous and proper  hazard  free

maintenance of the properties of the society which ultimately

enures to the enjoyment, benefit and safety of the members.

These charges are levied on the basis of resolutions passed by

the society and in consonance with its bye­laws.  The receipts

in the present cases have indisputably been used for mutual

benefit towards maintenance of the premises, repairs,

infrastructure and provision of common amenities.  

20.  Any difference in the contributions payable by old

members and fresh inductees cannot fall foul of  the  law as

sufficient classification exists.  Membership forming a class,

18

the identity of the individual member not being relevant,

induction into membership automatically attracts the doctrine

of  mutuality.   If a Society  has surplus  FSI available, it is

entitled to utilise the same by making fresh construction in

accordance with law.   Naturally such additional construction

would entail extra charges towards maintenance,

infrastructure, common facilities and amenities.  If the society

first inducts new members who are required to contribute to

the common fund for availing common facilities, and then

grants  only  occupancy rights to them by  draw of lots, the

ownership remaining with the society, the receipts cannot be

bifurcated into two segments of receipt and costs, so as to hold

the former to be outside the purview of mutuality classifying it

as income of the society with commerciality.  

21. Section 79A of the  Maharashtra  Co­operative  Societies

Act reads as follows:

“79A. Government's power to give directions in the public interest, etc.­ (1) If the State Government, on receipt of a report from the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes

19

of securing proper implementation of co­operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by Government, or to secure the proper management of the business of the Society generally, or  for preventing the affairs of  the Society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or of  the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of  societies  generally  or to  any Society  or societies in particular, the State Government may issue directions to them  from  time  to time,  and all societies or the societies concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.

(2) The State Government may modify or cancel any directions issued under subsection (1), and in modifying  or  cancelling  such directions  may  impose such conditions as it may deem fit.

(3)  Where the  Registrar is  satisfied that  any person was responsible for complying with any directions or modified directions issued to a Society under sub­ sections (1) and (2) and he has failed without any good reason or justification, to comply with the directions, the Registrar may by order­­

(a) if the person is a member of the committee of the Society, remove the member from the Committee and appoint any other person as member  of the  committee for the  remainder  of the term of his office and declare him to be disqualified to be such member for a period of six years from the date of the order:

(b)  if the person is an employee of  the Society, direct the committee to remove such person from employment of the Society forthwith, and if any member or members of the committee,  without

20

any good reason or justification, fail to  comply with this order, remove the  members, appoint other persons as members and declare them disqualified as provided in clause (a) above:

Provided that, before  making any order under this sub­section, the Registrar shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person or persons concerned and consult the federal Society is affiliated.

Any order made by the Registrar under  this section shall be final.”

22. In  The New India Co­operative Housing Society

(supra), the challenge by the aggrieved was to the transfer fee

levied by the society in excess of that specified in the

notification,  which  is  a  completely  different  cause  of  action

having no relevance to the present controversy.   It is not the

case of the Revenue that such receipts have not been utilised

for the common benefit of those who have contributed to the

funds.  

23.   The notification dated 09.08.2001 in the relevant extract

reads as follows:­

21

ORDER

In the exercise of the powers conferred upon

the State Government under Section 79­A of

the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act,

1960 following orders are hereby issued in the

larger interests of the people in the State.

1)  Xxxxxx

2) The rate of premium to be charged for the transfer Flat/Premises as well as the rights and share in the share capital/property of the Co­operative Housing Society by a member in favour of another, should be determined at the General Meeting of the Society.

24. We do not find any reason to take a view different from

that taken by the High Court, that the notification dated

09.08.2001 is applicable only to co­operative housing societies

and has no application to a premises society which consists of

non­residential premises.  

25.  Kumbakonam  (supra), is distinguishable on its own

facts.   The doctrine of mutuality was held to be inapplicable

because the members who had not contributed to surplus as

customers were nevertheless entitled to participate and receive

part of the surplus.   In Chelmsford Club (supra), it was held

22

that there was no profit motive or sharing of profits as such

amongst the members.  The surplus, if any, from the business

was not shared by the members but was used for providing

better  facilities to the members.   There was a clear  identity

between the contributors and the participators to the fund and

the recipients thereof.

26.  In the result, all  appeals preferred by the Revenue are

dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015 preferred by the

assessee society is allowed.

…………………………...J. (Rohinton Fali Nariman)

……………………………..J. (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi, March 12, 2018.

23

ITEM NO.1501            COURT NO.10              SECTION IX

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A.No.2706/2018 @ SLP(C)No.30194/2010

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11- 01-2010 in ITA No.680/2009 passed by the High Court Of  Judicature At Bombay)

INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI                   Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD.            Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A.No.3271/2012 (IX)

C.A.No.3272/2012 (IX)

C.A.No.3827/2012 (IX)

C.A.No.1180/2015 (III)

C.A.No.2997/2017 (III)

C.A.No.8741/2017 (III)

C.A.No.2708/2018 in SLP(C)No.32061/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2707/2018 in SLP(C)No.30195/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2713/2018 in SLP(C)No.32914/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2710/2018 in SLP(C)No.32913/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2709/2018 in SLP(C)No.32063/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2711/2018 in SLP(C)No.32065/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2712/2018 in SLP(C)No.34087/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2716/2018 in SLP(C)No.35120/2010 (IX)

24

C.A.No.2714/2018 in SLP(C)No.32918/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2715/2018 in SLP(C)No.34061/2010 (IX)

C.A.No.2717/2018 in SLP(C)No.128/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2728/2018 in SLP(C)No.16967/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2718/2018 in SLP(C)No.133/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2720/2018 in SLP(C)No.367/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2721/2018 in SLP(C)No.370/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2719/2018 in SLP(C)No.378/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2722/2018 in SLP(C)No.2623/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2724/2018 in SLP(C)No.2745/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2726/2018 in SLP(C)No.4096/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2723/2018 in SLP(C)No.2744/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2725/2018 in SLP(C)No.3283/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2727/2018 in SLP(C)No.5382/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2729/2018 in SLP(C)No.17102/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2730/2018 in SLP(C)No.17667/2011 (IX)

C.A.No.2731/2018 in SLP(C)No.19992/2012 (IX)

C.A.No.2732/2018 in SLP(C)No.19993/2012 (IX)

C.A.No.2733/2018 in SLP(C)No.17428/2015 (IX)

C.A.No.2734/2018 in SLP(C)No.29755/2013 (IX)

C.A.No.2735/2018 in SLP(C)No.17430/2015 (IX)

C.A.No.2736/2018 in SLP(C)No.17431/2015 (IX)

C.A.No.2740/2018 in SLP(C)No.37702/2016 (IX)

C.A.No.2739/2018 in SLP(C)No.36157/2016 (IX)

25

C.A.No.2737/2018 in SLP(C)No.34865/2016 (IX)

C.A.No.2738/2018 in SLP(C)No.34866/2016 (IX)

C.A.No.2741/2018 in SLP(C)No.4122/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2742/2018 in SLP(C)No.4126/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2743/2018 in SLP(C)No.12234/2017 (IX)

C.A.Nos.2766-2767/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6582-6583/2018 @ Diary  No(s). 14603/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2747/2018 in SLP(C)No.19340/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2744/2018 in SLP(C)No.18935/2017 (IX)

C.A.Nos.2768-2769/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6585-6586/2018 @ Diary  No(s). 14672/2017 (IX)

C.A.Nos.2771-2772/2018 @ SLP(C)Nos.6587-6588/2018 @ Diary  No(s). 14675/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2770/2018 @ SLP(C)No.6589/2018 @ Diary  No(s).14674/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2746/2018 in SLP(C)No.18944/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2745/2018 in SLP(C)No.18943/2017 (IX)

C.A.No.2765/2018 @ SLP(C)No.6550/2018 @ Diary  No(s).18867/2017 (IX)                      Date : 12-03-2018  These petitions were called on for  

   pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,AOR    Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,AOR

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Aor Mr. Shikhil Suri,Adv. Mr. Saswat Pattnaik,Adv.

26

For Respondent(s) Mr. Salil Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani,Adv. Ms. Soumya Singh,Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor,Adv. Mr. Kislaya Parashar,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Sharma,Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel,Adv.

Mr. Firasat Ali Siddiqi,Adv. Mr. A.D. Kumar,Adv. Mr. Anil Kr. Chopra,Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury,AOR

Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam,Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra,Adv. Ms. Manik Karanjawala,Adv. For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.,AOR Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman,Adv. Ms. Niharika,Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan,Adv. For M/s. K.J. John & Co.,AOR

Mr. S. C. Birla,AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,AOR Mrs.  Shally Bhasin,AOR Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,AOR Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani,AOR Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR Mrs. V.D. Khanna,AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,AOR

Hon'ble Mr.  Justice Navin  Sinha pronounced

the  Reportable  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and His

Lordship.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted in all the SLPs.

27

The  appeals  preferred  by  the  Revenue  are

dismissed and Civil Appeal No.1180/2015 preferred

by the assessee-society is allowed in terms of the

signed Reportable judgment.   

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

     (Sarita Purohit)                    (Suman Jain)         Court Master                     Branch Officer

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)

28