“DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY”

Submitted by

R.GOWTHAM

Reg. No. BA0150017

Under the Guidance of

Rahul Hemrajani

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 009
November – 2018

Page | 1
Rahul Hemrajani
Tamil Nadu National Law School
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 009

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project work entitled “DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY” is a bonafied
record of the research work done by R.Gowtham, under my supervision and guidance.
It has not been submitted by any other University for the award of any degree, diploma,
associate ship, fellowship or for any other similar recognition.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date: 2nd November 2018

Signature of the Guide

Page | 2
R.GOWTHAM
Reg. No. BA0150017
IV– B.A., LLB. (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu National Law School
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 009

DECLARATION

I, R.GOWTHAM, do hereby declare that the project entitled “DOCTRINE OF

MUTUALITY” submitted to Tamil Nadu National Law School in partial fulfilment of

requirement for award of degree in Under Graduate in Law to Tamil Nadu National

Law School, Tiruchirappalli, is my original research work. It and has not been formed

basis for award of any degree or diploma or fellowship or any other title to any other

candidate of any university.

Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Project Guide

Page | 3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my gratitude to the many people who helped to bring this research project
to fruition. First, I would like to thank Rahul Hemrajani sir, for providing me the opportunity
of expressing my talent and opinion of particular case. I am so deeply grateful for her help,
professionalism, valuable guidance and support throughout this project and through my entire
study that I do not have enough words to express my deep and sincere appreciation. I would
also like to thank the experts who were involved in the validation survey for this research
project. Without their passionate participation and input, the validation survey could not have
been successfully conducted. I would also like to acknowledge Professor Bomminathan as the
second reader of this project, and I am gratefully indebted to him for his very valuable
comments on this project work.

My thanks also go to the all my friends for their numerous conversations, questions and help.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents for providing me with
unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my research of study and through
the process of researching and writing this project. This accomplishment would not have been
possible without them.
R.GOWTHAM.

Page | 4
S. No CONTENTS Page
No.

CHAPTER I
1.1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.2 MUTUAL CONCERN: DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY 6
1.3 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY 8
 THE ELEMENT OF COMPLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN CONTRIBUTORS
AND PARTICIPATORS 8
 THE ELEMENT OF TRADE/ BUSINESS WITH MEMBERS 9
 THE ELEMENT OF MUTUAL AND NON-MUTUAL ACTIVITIES 9
CHAPTER II: PROBLEM ANALYSIS
2.1 PROBLEM 1 11
2.2 PROBLEM 2 13
2.3 PROBLEM 3 14
2.4 PROBLEM 4 15
2.5 PROBLEM 5 16
CHAPTER III
3.1 CONCLUDING OPINION 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY 18

Page | 5
 DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalised robbery”

- Calvin Coolidge

CHAPTER – I

1.1 INTRODUCTION

“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax” was once pointed out by
Albert Einstein. However the income taxes are computed on the bases of Total income/ receipts
that has accrued to the assesse/ person in the previous year. But every receipt cannot ipso facto
be classified as income.1 Tax is the common burden on all the person, however what is
important is, there are few situation in which taxes are not levied.

Usually, cases in which section 10 are applicable are exempted from the calculation of tax and
in certain cases the sections as to deduction under section 80 of the Income Tax are made
applicable. Under this Income Tax Act, “Person” is defined under Section Sec 2 (31) of the
Income Tax Act, Which clearly points out that, “Person includes an individual, a Hindu
undivided family, a company, an association of body, body of person and every artificial
juridical persons”.

In reference to the above definition, taxes are levied on all persons. However in cases of
Member Clubs and Co-operative Societies, is it possible to tax on the income which they
receive from its members i.e. whether the “receipts or in some cases surplus receipts” gained
by the member clubs/ cooperative society from its members, can be exempted from Income tax
or whether the, surplus receipts are “income” and taxable under the Income Tax Act?.

1.2 MUTUAL CONCERN: DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY

Doctrine of Mutuality provides exemption from tax. “A person cannot make a profit from
himself”, same like a person cannot trade or business with himself/herself2. However, the
meaning of this doctrine relates to a group of persons (i.e. co-operative societies, member clubs,
mutual funds, etc.) who contribute to a common fund, which is created and controlled solely
by the members of the group, for their common benefit. If in any case, any amount surplus to

1
CIT v. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC).
2
Dublin Corpn. v. M’ Adam [1887] 2TC387.

Page | 6
the actual amount contributed to the fund, such surplus amount are used for the benefit of the
members and for the common purpose, are neither considered income and are not taxable.

However, in order to establish this doctrine, the members have to satisfy that there is no
intention of profit making and surplus in the business is not shared by the members but is used
for providing better facilities to the members.

The idea as to mutual concern signify that there is no element of commerciality i.e. no profit
making motive among the members. Any income be it be profits, gains or surplus receipts
cannot be taxed under the Income Tax Act. This principle was upheld in the case of Styles v.
New York Life Insurance Corporation3, Lord Watson said

“When a single individual or group of person, who contribute certain sum of money for their
future benefits, and any service in return provided to them by the association/ any other form,
I cannot conceive why they should be regarded as traders, or why contributions returned to
them should be regarded as profits”.

The idea as to why such receipts are not taxable is because of the sole reason that, the amount
paid by the member (“Contributors”) and the benefits received by the member (“Contributors”)
both are the same person and there is no new recipient in this case, the contributors are the
recipients in the case because of the underlying principle of this doctrine where no man can
make a profit out of himself.4 However, in case of IR v. Cornish Mutual Assce Co. Ltd5, the
House of Lords held “the surplus that are charged from its members in certain cases are not
taxable income under the Income Tax”. This particular decision have been observed in various
numerous decisions.6

For Example, in case of a mutual insurance association where the benefit that accrue after the
certain event has taken i.e. based on certain contingency, the return of cash is to the same
contributors who made the insurance in his name it is in essence merely a return of his own
money which he has overpaid and is not a profit at all.7

3
Styles v. New York Life Insurance Corporation 2 TC 460, 471 (HL).
4
National Mutual Life Association v. CIT 5 ITC 238, 251; Ostime v. Pontypridd 28 TC 261, 278 (HL); National
Assn. v. Watkins 18 TC 499, 505-506; Jones v. South West Lancashire Assn. 11 TC 790, 822 (HL); Carlisle v.
Smith 6 TC 198, 200 (CA); Dublin Corporation v. M’ Adam 2 TC 387, 397; Harris v. Corporation of Burgh 4 TC
221, 223; Indermani v. CIT 35 ITR 298, 306-308 (SC); Alagappa v. CIT 59 ITR 440, 447.
5
IR v. Cornish Mutual Assce Co. Ltd 12 TC 841.
6
General Family Pension Fund v. CIT 14 ITR 488; CIT v. Madras Race Club 105 ITR 433.
7
Styles v. New York Life Insurance 2 TC 460 (HL); Jones v. South-west Lancashire Assn. 11 TC 790 (HL);
Municipal Mutual Ins. Hills 16 TC 430 (HL); National Mutual Life Assn. v. CIT 5 ITC 238.

Page | 7
1.3 PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY

It is very simple that, Doctrine of Mutuality provides a shelter to the assesse from not
computing his tax for the total income which he has received in the previous year. However
there is a thin line of difference between the concept of Mutual Concern and General Concern,
In case of Mutual concern, the benefits are shared among its members and there is no element
of benefits being shared for the “General Public” at large, however in case of General Concern,
the sole purpose with which the charity or any other form is created are for the benefit of society
at large.

But however in order to understand in depth the integration of the mutual concern, it is
necessary to list down the important ingredients to the principle governing doctrine of
mutuality:

 The element of complete identity between Contributors and Participators.

 The element of Trade/ Business with members.
 The element of Mutual and Non-mutual activities.

1. The element of complete identity between contributors and participators: The

doctrine of mutuality is completely based on this principal and this principal being the most
effective way to determine the mutual concern. This element of mutual concern was pointed
by courts in various decisions, however in case of Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd. v.
Hills8, the court pointed out that, “The fundamental principal is that all the contributors
and the participators and the recipient to the common fund and common benefit should
have a complete same identity. However it is immaterial as that each member should get
precisely the same amount what he has contributed.”

Contributors Participators Receipient

Doctrine of Mutuality

If the above chart is satisfied, then it becomes immaterial to take into consideration the nature
of the association formed.9

8
Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd. v. Hills 16 TC 430, 448 (HL); CIT v. Bombay Oilseeds 202 ITR 198.
9
CIT v. Nataraj 169 ITR 732.

Page | 8
However, it is important to highlight the principle laid down in English & Scottish joint Co-
operation whole sale society Ltd. v. C Ag IT10, the court of the opinion was that “mere formation
of association does not vest the principle of mutual concern, if the association sells the goods
manufactured by it for example tea manufacturing, which is grown and manufactured by the
association at a price which exceeds the cost of producing it and sells it with profits, then the
intention is very clear that the element of profit motive comes into picture, therefore the very
bases of doctrine of mutual concern are negated”.

However the clarification has to be made that, still if the benefits are being given to the same
contributors with the element of profit motive in it, between the same group contributors and
the same group of participators and the same group of recipients, yet the doctrine of mutuality
cannot be taken as a shield by any association, because of the sole reason that the element of
profit motive comes into the picture, which evades and takes away the element of mutual
concern.

2. The element of Trade/ Business with members: The element of trade has to be taken into
consideration very seriously while taking shelter under Doctrine of Mutuality, where in
case of a company incorporated under the Companies Act or any association of member,
the surplus arising out of the common fund if it is made applicable to all the members, then
the element of mutual concern cannot be taken into account, where it is only trade or
business made by the company with its members because the identity as to the principle
that same contributors, same recipients lacks in this case11.

For example: The shareholders and the contributors to the fund out of which dividends paid
were not identical12, in these case the doctrine of mutuality cannot be taken as a defence.

3. The element of Mutual and Non-mutual activities: The association may carry on
‘mutual’ activities resulting in a non-taxable surplus and also non-mutual activities
resulting in taxable profits.13 However in order to determine whether it is a mutual concern
or non-mutual concern, it have to be analysed based on case to case scenario.

10
English & Scottish joint Co-operation whole sale society Ltd. v. C Ag IT 16 ITR 270.
11
CIT v. Kumbakonam 53 ITR 241 (SC); Jones v. South-west Lancashire Association 11 TC 790; East India
Chamber of Commerce v. CIT 31 ITR 791; Delhi Stock Exchange v. CIT 41 ITR 495 (SC).
12
Liverpool in English Co-operative Society v. C Ag IT 16 ITR 270
13
CIT v. Madras Race Club 105 ITR 433; CIT v. Ranchi Club 196 ITR 137; CIT v. ITI Fund 234 ITR 308;
National Mutual Life Association v. CIT 5 ITC 238.

Page | 9
For Example: In case of Mutual Benefit Fund, Benefit funds, Funds per se if the company deal
with borrowing and lending funds and money even within the members of the company, it
cannot take the shield of Doctrine of Mutuality14, because of the principle of profit making
motive and also the “non-mutual activities results in taxable profits”.

However it is the settled position of law that, the member clubs or any social club in which any
surplus/ any receipt accruing to its members club or any social club etc. arising from the any
subscription charges and various other convenience amounts/ payment made by the members
of the club for conducting club functions and parties etc, in all such cases whatever income
accruing to the member club cannot be taxed under the Income Tax Act.15

In light of the above para, the idea to the member club are not taxable and they can take the
shelter under the doctrine of Mutuality was highlighted in the famous case of National
Association of Local Government officers v. Watkins16, it was pointed out that, “it is a fallacy,
to say in case of the club that, where a member orders a dinner and consumes it, there is any
sale to him. There is no sale at all. The fundamental thing is that the whole property is vested
for the use of the members alone. The members have a right to participate in the whole and
there is no trade among the members. They cannot trade with themselves”.

However the income which is received by the member club from its non-members are taxable,
like any kinds of charges paid, entry fees, registration fees for the party etc17. The important
element with regard to the member club is that the members’ of the club should own the club
and if not and it is a proprietary club, meaning there by it is owned by a single person or by
way of partnership, in such cases it means the owner is carrying on the business of running
club, therefore any income accrues will be taxable in the hands of its owners/ partners.

However, the arguments to establish the doctrine of mutuality/ mutual concern is very difficult,
therefore what is needed is that, a case to case analysis has to be made to understand it in depth.

14
CIT v. Kumbakonam 53 ITR 241 (SC); Trichinopoly Tennore v. CIT 2 ITC 386; CIT v. Madura Hindu
Permanent Fund 1 ITR 46; CIT v. Salem Bank 8 ITR 269.
15
CIT v. Merchant Navy Club 96 ITR 261; United Service Club v. Crown 1 ITC 113; I.R. v. Stonehaven 15 TC
419.
16
National Association of Local Government officers v. Watkins 18 TC 499.
17
Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Sec of State 1 ITC 108; National Association v. Watkins 18 TC 499.

Page | 10
 CHAPTER – II

2.1 PROBLEM 1:

ANALYSIS:

IN FAVOUR OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

Such receipts either normal/ surplus in nature, which are received from the members are not in
the nature of business income and there is no element of commerciality in it.

It is the cardinal principle in which, when a person was admitted by way of membership to the
co-operative housing society he becomes a members and thereby subject to the enjoyment,
further the identity of the individual becomes irrelevant, since the principle of mutual concern
was automatically attracted.

It is the settled position of the law that, “the transfer fee payable by the outgoing member for
the extension of enjoyment of amenities, whatever amount that was paid in the capacity of
member of a cooperative society, it will not be taxable, because it is for the mutual benefit of
the members of that society”.18

The Honourable Supreme Court, dealing with this particular issue, laid the principle in the very
recent case that, “The receipts 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”.19

It is also the settled position of law that “whatever charges that the cooperative housing society
receives from the members such as repair charges, amenities charges, maintenance charges,
non-occupancy charges are all in turn for the benefits of the members and cannot be branded
as Income under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of levying tax”.20

Therefore, the charges are that are collected are for the benefits of the members only and
thereby the element of identity between the contributors and recipient are satisfied, any amount
even if it paid in surplus are benefited for the future use only for those members and there is
no element of commerciality and the profit making motive intention. Hence any amount

18
CIT v. Adarsh Society 213 ITR 677; CIT v. Apsara Scoeity 204 ITR 662; Haryana Federation v. CIT 252 ITR
265.
19
Income Tax Officer,Mumbai v. Venkatesh Premises Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2018, 12th March,
2018, (Supreme Court)
20
Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd v. ITO 320 ITR 414, Sind Cooperative Housing Socirty v CIT
317 ITR 47.

Page | 11
received by the cooperative society are not in the nature of trade or business, there no tax is
computed.

AGAINST THE IDEA OF MUTUAL CONCERN:

Whatever be the nature of collection of money, it is pointed out that, “when any amount which
is received in excess to statutory or general acceptance by the members at the time of taking
the membership, any surplus paid in latter date cannot constitute doctrine of mutuality”, since
any surplus receipts received by the society are in the nature of trading, therefore the
commerciality and profit making motive comes into picture, therefore it is of the nature of
income taxable under the Income Tax Act.

It is the settled position of law that, The New India Co-operative Housing Society v. The State
of Maharashtra, it was held that, “any receipts gained by the cooperative society beyond the
prescribed amount by the state government are in the nature of income and hence chargeable
under the Income Tax Act”21.

It was held that, “where a co-operative society which sold tea grown and manufactured by
itself to its members was held by the privy council to be non-mutual”22and receipts have an
element of commerciality.

Therefore, such charges are seeming to be in the nature of trading business with the element of
commerciality because the cooperative housing society tries to take the shelter under the mutual
concern doctrine to avoid tax, hence such surplus receipts should be charged as income under
the Income Tax Act.

21
CIT vs. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 96, Chelmsford Club v. CIT
(2000) 3 SCC 214.
22
English & Scottish Joint Co-operative wholesale Society Ltd. v. C Ag IT 16 ITR 270.

Page | 12
2.2 PROBLEM 2:

ANALYSIS:

IN FAVOUR OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

The main crux mutuality concern works on is that, “all the contributors are entitled to enjoy
equally (approx.), the surplus with they have created commonly for their benefit”.

What is What is
Doctrine of
returned is you have
Mutuality
to you contributed

It is the settled position of law that, the member clubs or any social club in which any surplus/
any receipt accruing to its members club or any social club etc. arising from the any
subscription charges and various other convenience amounts/ payment made by the members
of the club for conducting club functions and parties etc, in all such cases whatever income
accruing to the member club cannot be taxed under the Income Tax Act.23 In substance, the
arrangement or relationship between the club and its members should be of a non-trading
character24.

In light of the above para, the idea to the member club are not taxable and they can take the
shelter under the doctrine of Mutuality was highlighted in the famous case of National
Association of Local Government officers v. Watkins25, it was pointed out that, “it is a fallacy,
to say in case of the club that, where a member orders a dinner and consumes it, there is any
sale to him. There is no sale at all. The fundamental thing is that the whole property is vested
for the use of the members alone. The members have a right to participate in the whole and
there is no trade among the members. They cannot trade with themselves”. However the
income which is received by the member club from its non-members are taxable, like any kinds
of charges paid, entry fees, registration fees for the party etc26.

23
CIT v. Merchant Navy Club 96 ITR 261; United Service Club v. Crown 1 ITC 113; I.R. v. Stonehaven 15 TC
419.
24
Fletcher v. Income Tax Commissioner 1971 (3) AJI ER 1185
25
National Association of Local Government officers v. Watkins 18 TC 499.
26
Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Sec of State 1 ITC 108; National Association v. Watkins 18 TC 499.

Page | 13
It is on the fact that whatever surplus that the member club receives from its members will
definitely be returned back to the members alone and not to any non-member. Therefore, the
doctrine of mutuality can be taken as a defence.

AGAINST THE IDEA OF MUTUAL CONCERN:

The important point that have to be taken into consideration is that, the computation of head of
income under which the tax have to be levied. It is pointed out that, in all cases where doctrine
of mutuality is taken as a defence, it is for sure pointed out that there is no business or
profession, then it is a valid ground to compute the tax under the head income from the house
property because of the primary reason that, the club in this case is a building and the assesse
is the owner and in such cases the income tax can be charged under the head of income from
house property since there is no business or profession being carried.

It is the settled position of law that “if an income is computed under one head then it is obvious
that it cannot be computed under the other head”, in this case since there is no business and
profession it is valid enough to charge the tax under the head income from house property.27

2.3 PROBLEM 3:

ANALYSIS:

IN FAVOUR OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

The concept of mutuality has been extended to a specific group of people which is created
solely for their own purpose and any surplus if received by such association or any other form
if used for their betterment then mutuality doctrine can be taken as a defence.

With respect to this problem, and “in general members clubs have members which created that
club for their benefit, they will not have any property rights i.e. to sell the property or shares
in some case, thereby it is an implication that there is no commerciality element; profit making
motive element absent in it”.28

Once the element of complete identity between the contributors and the recipients are satisfied,
then whatever the nature of body it take, the element of mutual concern are applicable.

Therefore, it is not a disputed a question that the interest earned by the assesse from the surplus
fund invested in fixed deposits with member banks are used solely for the purpose of the

27
United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1957 32 ITR 688
28
M/S. Bangalore Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr (2013) 5 SCC 509.

Page | 14
members therefore, the protection of tax exemption under the doctrine of mutual concern are
very much applicable29.

AGAINST THE IDEA OF MUTUAL CONCERN:

It is the settled position of law that, when there is lack of identity between the contributors and
the participants, then the protection of mutual concern cannot be taken as a defence. In this
case, when the excess receipts are deposited in the member clubs yet the interest that is received
by the club are not properly utilised for the benefit of the members rather it is used for the
benefit of the club per se, which includes non-members also.

On the face of it, it can be understood that, what have been done by the club is nothing more
than what a customer would have done pertaining to the problem of this case. Therefore it is
not a valid defence to take protection under mutuality concern.

2.4 PROBLEM 4:

ANALYSIS:

IN FAVOUR OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

In light of this problem, the above principles in favour of the doctrine of mutuality holds good,
since the element of identity as to the participants and also the recipient has been established
in depth, therefore the receipts from the cricketer player (represented by its Cricket Club) pays
for the refreshment and locker room and also the pavilion which it facilitates to the cricketers
to take benefits out of it. Therefore, the doctrine of mutuality can be taken as shelter to protect
it from paying tax.

29
English & Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income
Tax, Assam [1948] 16 ITR 270 (PC); Chelmsford Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 155 ITR 373.

Page | 15
2.5 PROBLEM 5:

ANALYSIS:

IN FAVOUR OF THE MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

A club belongs to the members for the time being on its list of members. Thus, members can
deal with the club as they like. In a case which dealt with similar question the court held that
there was no sale as there is no transfer of property. The club though being a separate legal
entity it is acting as an agent in matter of supply of various preparations. In the absence of profit
motive, the supply of refreshments by a club to its members would not be a sale.

It is the settled position of law that “when a club supplies foods for its members, who are the
sole contributors to the club and also the recipient to the club, there the element of sale does
not occur with respect to any transaction made between the members and the club”.30

Article 366 (29A) states that sale of goods by an unincorporated association or body of persons
is taxable. It is considered as sale if it is supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other
valuable consideration. The reliance can be placed on the young men’s association as says that
providing of food and drinks by an incorporated body is not a sale, Article 366 talks only about
unincorporated body. After reading the facts of this case we cannot include doctrine of
mutuality in this case.

The doctrine was applied initially to unincorported bodies, members collectively obtained
goods and thereafter released their rights in favour of each other in the goods supplied to each
member. The doctrine was later expanded to cases where in reality the transaction was mutual.
After the introduction of Article 366 (29A) (e) it struck at the root of the doctrine and it no
longer can be invoked for any entity so far as levy as sales tax in concerned.

AGAINST THE IDEA OF MUTUAL CONCERN:

If an incorporated club supplies its property to its members at a fixed tariff, the transaction
would readily be deemed to be one for sale, even if the transaction is on a non-profit basis.
Such a transaction would be liable to tax. The reference to unincorporated association in clause
(e) does not imply that all goods supplied by incorporated associations or body of persons to
their members would not amount to sale. Much of the business in any part of the world is

30
Young men’s association v. Joint commercial tax officer 1970 SCR (3) 680

Page | 16
carried out by incorporated bodies. So it would be absurd to say that supply of goods by the
body to its shareholders would not amount to sale.

CHAPTER – III

3.1 CONCLUDING OPINION:

Doctrine of Mutuality or the Mutual Concern is an important defence for so many associations,
because looking at the present scenario and the tax liability which are being imposed by the
government at a huge rate. People usually want to exempt them from paying tax which is very
difficult since tax is a common burden on all, however special situation arises which are
discussed in depth in this project would point out that there are few exception in cases where
the members receive benefits from their very own common fund, like they create the member
cubs, co-operative societies and various other forms of associations

But however, in order to take the shelter under the mutual concern it is very much important
that the below chart have to be established in the court of law, and along with this facts and
circumstances should be very strong to establish the same.

Association of
people/
Contributors

Contributors For common

Doctrine
and Recipient benefit and
of
remains the common cause
Mutuality
same person

No
commerciality
element/ No
Profit Making
motive

******************************

Page | 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTE

1. Income Tax Act, 1961

BOOKS

1. Arvind P Datar, The Law and Practice of Income Tax, Lexis Nexis Publication,
(10th ed. 2014).
2. Vinod K. Singhania & Kapil Singhania, Direct Taxes law & Practice, Taxmann
Publications A.Y 2016-2017 & 2017-2018.

CASE LAWS

1. Alagappa v. CIT 59 ITR 440, 447.

2. Carlisle v. Smith 6 TC 198, 200 (CA);
3. Chelmsford Club v. CIT (2000) 3 SCC 214.
4. CIT v. Adarsh Society 213 ITR 677;
5. CIT v. Apsara Society 204 ITR 662;
6. CIT v. Bombay Oilseeds 202 ITR 198.
7. CIT v. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC).
8. CIT v. ITI Fund 234 ITR 308;
9. CIT v. Kumbakonam 53 ITR 241 (SC);
10. CIT v. Madras Race Club 105 ITR 433.
11. CIT v. Madura Hindu Permanent Fund 1 ITR 46;
12. CIT v. Merchant Navy Club 96 ITR 261;
13. CIT v. Nataraj 169 ITR 732.
14. CIT v. Ranchi Club 196 ITR 137;
15. CIT v. Salem Bank 8 ITR 269.
16. CIT vs. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 96,
17. Delhi Stock Exchange v. CIT 41 ITR 495 (SC).
18. Dublin Corpn. v. M’ Adam [1887] 2TC387.
19. Dublin Corporation v. M’ Adam 2 TC 387, 397;
20. East India Chamber of Commerce v. CIT 31 ITR 791;
21. English & Scottish joint Co-operation whole sale society Ltd. v. C Ag IT 16 ITR 270.
22. Fletcher v. Income Tax Commissioner 1971 (3) AJI ER 1185

Page | 18
23. General Family Pension Fund v. CIT 14 ITR 488;
24. Harris v. Corporation of Burgh 4 TC 221, 223;
25. Haryana Federation v. CIT 252 ITR 265.
26. I.R. v. Stonehaven 15 TC 419.
27. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai v. Venkatesh Premises Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2018,
12th March, 2018, (Supreme Court)
28. Indermani v. CIT 35 ITR 298, 306-308 (SC);
29. IR v. Cornish Mutual Assce Co. Ltd 12 TC 841.
30. Jones v. South West Lancashire Assn. 11 TC 790, 822 (HL);
31. Liverpool in English Co-operative Society v. C Ag IT 16 ITR 270
32. M/S. Bangalore Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr (2013) 5 SCC 509.
33. Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd v. ITO 320 ITR 414,
34. Municipal Mutual Ins. Hills 16 TC 430 (HL);
35. National Assn. v. Watkins 18 TC 499, 505-506;
36. National Association of Local Government officers v. Watkins 18 TC 499.
37. National Mutual Life Assn. v. CIT 5 ITC 238.
38. Ostime v. Pontypridd 28 TC 261, 278 (HL);
39. Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. Sec of State 1 ITC 108;
40. Sind Cooperative Housing Society v CIT 317 ITR 47.
41. Styles v. New York Life Insurance Corporation 2 TC 460, 471 (HL).
42. Trichinopoly Tennore v. CIT 2 ITC 386;
43. United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1957 32 ITR 688
44. United Service Club v. Crown 1 ITC 113;
45. Young men’s association v. Joint commercial tax officer 1970 SCR (3) 680

Page | 19