Full Judgment Text
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)
Signature Not Verified
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2711 OF 2018
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 32065/2010)
Digitally signed by
BALA PARVATHI
Date: 2018.03.13
15:46:41 IST
Reason:
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
(supra) Such receipts will not be exigible to tax so
Society .
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
, (1997) 226
Income Tax, Bihar vs. M/s. Bankipur Club Ltd.
ITR 97 (SC ) = (1997) 5 SCC 394 and Bangalore Club vs.
(2013) 350 ITR
Commissioner of Income Tax and Another,
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
, (1889) 2 T.C. 460, by Lord
York Life Insurance Company
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 (supra), considering the surplus
Bankipur Club Ltd.
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. (supra), is distinguishable on its own
Kumbakonam
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 (supra), it was held
Chelmsford Club
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