M/S.madras Cricket Club v. Income Tax Officer,Company Ward Iv(1),Chennai-600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.10.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.449 of 2009 M/s.Madras Cricket Club... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer,Company Ward IV(1),Chennai-600 034... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income-Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras “D” Bench, dated 07.10.2008 in ITANo.610/Mds/2007, for the assessment year 2000-01 as against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals made in I.T.A.No. 571 mds/2008 dated 07.10.2008 as against the order of theIncome Tax officer Company Ward IV(1) Chennai 34 for theassessment year 2000-2001 dated 28.12.2006. For Appellant: Mr.G.Ashokapathy for M/s.Pass AssociatesFor Respondent : Mr.Karthick Ranganadhan JUDGMENT[Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orderdated 07.10.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras “D” Bench (the 'Tribunal' for brevity), in ITANo.610/Mds/2007, for the assessment year 2000-01. 2.The Appeal has been admitted, vide order dated 30.06.2009,on the following Substantial Question of Law:“Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis right in law in holding that the principleof mutuality and 'No Man can trade withhimself' is not applicable to the interestincome from fixed deposit earned by theappellant from bank out of the surplus fundsraised from contribution of several members ofthe appellants club even when the benefit ofinterest derived is utilised by several membersof the appellant's club?” 3.We have heard Mr.G.Ashokapathy, the learned counsel forthe appellant/assessee and Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, the learnedCounsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee fairlysubmits that the above Substantial Question of Law has beendecided against the assessee in the assessee's own case inT.C.A.Nos.928, 1067 to 1069 of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 (M/s.MadrasCricket Club vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Officer, CompanyWard IV (1), Chennai-34). 5.Further in the case of Madras Gymkhana Club vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 328 ITR 0348], an identicalquestion came for consideration and the same has been decidedagainst the assessee. 6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Club vs.Commissioner of Income Tax [(2013) 350 ITR 0509] held that ifthe object of the assessee company claiming to be a “mutualconcern” or “club”, is to carry on a particular business andmoney is realized both from the members and from non-members,for the same consideration by giving the same or similarfacilities to all alike in respect of the one and the samebusiness carried on by it, the dealings as a whole disclose thesame profit earning motive and are alike tainted withcommerciality. 7.In the light of the above decisions, the appeal filed byhe assessee has to be necessarily dismissed and accordingly, thetax case appeal is dismissed and the Substantial Question of Lawis answered against the assessee. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) True Copy mskTo1.The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “D” Bench. Madras.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench D, Chennai.3. The Income Tax officer, Company Ward IV(1), Chenni34.+1 CC to M/s. Pass Associates sr 74243.+1 CC to M/s. Karthick Ranganadhanm Advocate sr 73811.T.C. (Appeal) No.449 of 2009SP(19/11/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/