Saturday, October 19, 2019

Supreme Court Approves The Principle Of Mutuality, For CHS Income*


The Supreme Court has upheld the principle of mutuality, which states that a person cannot make profit from himself. We look at how this ruling will affect the levy of tax on receipts, such as non-occupancy charges, transfer fees, service charges, common amenity funds, etc

The Supreme Court (SC) of India recently provided a big relief to cooperative societies (societies), by dismissing the claim of the income tax authorities on levy of tax on various receipts (for example, non-occupancy charges, transfer fees, service charges, common amenity funds, etc.) collected by such societies. The dispute of the tax authorities revolved around a notification dated 09.08.2001, issued under section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and its applicability on such societies.

Based on this notification, the tax department contended that since these societies have received service charges/ maintenance charges in excess of 10 per cent of the non-occupancy charges, it was contrary to the law and hence, the principle of mutuality fails in such cases. The tax department held that such receipts are in the nature of business, having an element of commerciality and hence, principle of mutuality does not apply. The Income Tax Tribunal overruled the decision of the lower tax authorities, on the ground that the said notification was applicable only to cooperative societies and does not apply to commercial societies.

*Principle of mutuality and taxation on cooperative societies*
In this issue, the Bombay High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the tax department, ruled that the receipts of the societies are not in the nature of business income, generating profits/ surplus and therefore, not taxable. To claim the higher chunk of tax from similar issues, the tax authorities approached the SC. The SC observed that the doctrine of mutuality, is based on the theory that a person cannot make profit from himself. An amount received from a member, therefore, cannot be regarded as income of the society and treated as taxable in nature. The tax department has never challenged that the receipts of such societies have been utilised for purposes other than for the benefit of the members. The essence of the principle of mutuality, lies in the identification of the contributors and the participants, who are also the beneficiaries. Any surplus in the common fund, therefore, does not constitute income but will only be an increase in the common fund, meant to meet sudden/ future events.

Are tenants entitled to parking space in a CHS?
*Taxation on non-occupancy charges, transfer charges and contributions to the common fund*
It was also observed by the SC that transfer charges are generally paid by the outgoing member. If part of it is paid by the transferee, it would not partake the nature of profit or commerciality, as the amount is utilized only after the transferee is admitted as a member. The moment the transferee is included as a member, the principle of mutuality comes into picture. In the event of non-admission of such transferee, the amount is returned. The same applies for non-occupancy charges, which are levied by the society and are payable by a member, who does not occupy the premises but lets it out to a third person. The charges are, again, utilized only for the common facilities and amenities for the members of society. Similarly, any contribution to the common fund, by a member disposing of a property, is utilized for meeting sudden or regular heavy repairs, to ensure continuous and proper maintenance of the society, which ultimately accrues to the enjoyment, benefit and safety of the members.

The SC further ruled that once a member is admitted to the society, the members form a class and accordingly, the identity of such members is irrelevant and the principle of mutuality is attracted automatically. The SC, relying on a plethora of rulings, went on to conclude that there was no profit motive or sharing of profits amongst the members. The surplus, if any, was not shared amongst the members but was available for providing better facilities to the members. There was a clear identity between the participants and the contributors, to the common fund of the society.

*Conclusion*
By bringing an end to the prolonged war between such societies and the tax department, the decision of the SC would be welcomed by such societies, as going forward, they would be free from tax hassles and will be governed by the principle of mutuality, leading to all receipts from the members being tax-exempt.
Further, the SC has not specifically mentioned anything about the income received by cooperative housing societies. It is interesting to note that although the decision is restricted to non-residential societies, it should also provide shelter to residential societies, as the underlying principle of mutuality remains the same for all types of societies. Further, once the principle of mutuality is established, all the receipts shall be exempt from tax, even though the same are in excess of the quantum as specified under some other law for time being in force.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Rafale Deal and the Indian Supreme Court

Narayani Ranganathan has written very good post on MiLords. 
Every  single word is relevant.
—————————————-

By Over-Reach On Rafale, SC Is Now Party To The Weakening Of Institutions

If the Modi government has any self-respect, it should show the court its place in democracy and say it cannot divulge details of the Rafale deal in a “sealed cover”.

The next time the Indian Army chief is asked to fight a war, maybe he should consider placing his battle plans in a “sealed cover” before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) so that the country achieves true transparency before it can legitimately defend itself. After all, what’s better than transparency in a democracy adjudicated by men (almost always men) in black robes?

If you think this statement is rather outlandish, this is the logical outcome of the Supreme Court demanding to know the price of a Rafale combat aircraft. In hearings (31 October), a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph, said “the court would like to be apprised of the details with regard to the pricing/cost, particularly the advantage thereof, if any, which again will be submitted to the court in a sealed cover.”

We will come back to the farcical nature of contents delivered in “sealed covers” later, but let’s first look at how the court has inserted itself into a technical decision regarding which aircraft the country should buy for its defence, how much it should pay for the same, and whether the price paid is worth it.

Earlier, on 10th October, the bench had merely wanted to know how the government decided on its Rafale deal with Dassault, and the government duly complied by giving it a statement on the decision-making process in a “sealed cover” on 26 October. Now, the court not only wants to know how the deal was decided, but whether the decision itself was right.

How is it the job of the judiciary to decide this issue? Is it even equipped to do so? Let’s say the government tomorrow gives it another sealed envelope indicating that the price being paid for each Rafale is “x”, and then offers a paragraph each on the advantages of each weapon system, radar, or device attached to the combat aircraft.

The farce involved in giving information in a sealed envelope should be obvious to anyone who can think beyond basics. Sealed covers are not meant to remain sealed; at the very least, the CJI will have to open it. Will he then take one look and decide for himself if the answers given are valid or not, especially when the subject is technical? Will he discuss it with his spouse, or fellow-judges before arriving at a decision? 

 What, one may ask, is the court’s competence to decide on any of this?

Zero.

And if it is zero, it follows that if at all the court wants to figure out whether the price was right, the weapon systems were right, and that the difference in prices paid for a fully-loaded Rafale and the deal being negotiated earlier was justified, will it not need another expert panel to advise it on the matter before it takes a view? Or will it ask Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha to help it decide whether the deal was kosher? 

No. It will call in experts.

And once experts are going to be consulted, where is the question of secrecy in a defence deal with huge implications for security? How many 'experts' will an 'eyes only' document be shown to till it is leaked to the press, and possibly hostile countries?

Why then it is so outlandish to suggest that even war plans can be given to the court in a sealed envelope?

Now after discussing the contents with many 'experts' what will the CJI do with them ? Will he read and destroy? How is the government to know that these secret details are indeed destroyed to be sure that they don’t fall in the wrong hands?

Will the CJI file an affidavit to himself that all secret contents are destroyed, and that he personally supervised it?

The opposition, knowing the government is in a spot, is cheering the judiciary on and giving it covering fire in this blatant effort to dismantle the constitutional separation of powers between elected governments and the judiciary. There is a chorus that the government is “destroying” institutions, as if this judicial encroachment is itself not an attempt to circumscribe and debase the institution of the executive and the legislature. 

The executive is as much a creature, and “basic feature”, of the Constitution as the judiciary, and the Supreme Court should respect this separation of powers and not try to run the country – or its defence – through judicial orders. 

This act of the judiciary is a coup. It attempts to undermine not just the elected representative, but the people of this country (for who the court never had any respect ever)

And one may well ask what happened to the names of eight allegedly corrupt former CJIs that were given to the Supreme Court in 2010 by Shanti Bhushan, the father of the compulsive PIL-ster now using the judiciary to demand more secret disclosures in sealed covers.

We are heading towards kritarchy, or rule by the judiciary, and this is an even bigger threat to democracy than mere authoritarian leaders. The latter are elected, and hence can be rejected by the electorate, but the judiciary is accountable to no one but itself. 

If the Narendra Modi government has any self-respect, it should tell the court it cannot divulge these details. Let the court do what it will. What will it do? Send the PM and the Defence Minister to jail?

Friday, September 22, 2017

Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Flat to Nominee

*Land Mark Judgement ðŸ˜—
Nominee of Deceased Member is absolutely entitled for the Ownership by transfer, Co-op. Soc can't challenge the right of Nominee a settled Law of the land. No legal heirship, court order or succession certificate is required. Please circulate, important for society members and  office bearers.

Reference:
                       
M: After Nomination is registered by society  you don't need 
1 To prove legal heirship
2 No further court order required 
3 No succession Certification                        
Thus Transfer to registered  Nominee is Automatic

Friday, September 26, 2014

SWACHCH BHARAT CAMPAIGN

A great initiative by our PM and deserves support from every quarter.
 

Monday, April 14, 2014

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Thursday, February 13, 2014

RESIGNATION OF COL JAGDISH MADAN FROM THE MC

Construction of a temple in the Society is an emotive issue and, therefore, requires adhering to proper procedures, laid down norms and thorough planning. Besides, such important issues cannot, and indeed never, be initiated without the mandatory sanction of the Management Committee (MC) as well as the General Body.  The issue was discussed in the MC Meeting on 5th Feb 2014 and, rightly, it was agreed that it will be included in the agenda of the GBM scheduled to be held on 2nd March 2014. However, the decision of the MC was circumvented and the construction commenced with shortage of water being used as a subterfuge. 


Monday, February 3, 2014

NOTICE BOARD BATTLES

1.         Please refer to letter dated 1st Feb 2014 addressed to members by Shri LC Tomar (Placed opposite).

2.         There are three issues that have repeatedly been mentioned in various Notices and letters by Shri LC Tomar; these are:
            (a)        Rana case details; and
            (b)        Increase in penalty for wastage of water.
            (c )       Performance of Society Lawyer.

3.         Rana Case. The case is in final stage of culmination in the High Court and details of the same have been more than adequately covered in GBMs and letters to members by the previous MC. Suffice to say that any blame game at this stage will only create an atmosphere of belligerence in the Society. Since we have no control over the outcome of the case, there is hardly any merit in throwing mud on each other.

4.         Water Wastage Penalty. While there is no argument against imposition of a penalty on those who waste water, such increase in the penalty should have been taken by the MC. Since the Secretary had taken the decision, it should have been validated by the MC in its meeting and a record thereof made.

5.         Performance of Society Advocate. The Society’s advocate, Shri DS Patial has successfully fought the following cases:

(a)        Anil Sharma Vs AK Malpani and Ors in the Court of Shri Sanjay Jindal in District Courts, Dwarka.

(b)        AK Malpani and Ors Vs Anil Sharma in the Court of Shri NK Kaushik in District Courts, Dwarka.

(c )       (Anil Sharma Vs DIN CGHS Ltd.) in the court of the Financial Commissioner.

(d)       Amrit Kaur Vs DIN CGHS Ltd in the Court of Ms Anu Grover Baliga in District Courts, Dwarka.

6.         In addition, Shri DS Patial has given invaluable advice in the following cases:
(a)        Chand Case*. It was his advice that we negotiate with Chand Construction Co. rather than continue fighting a futile case. The Society saved Rs twelve lacs.

(b)        Jeet Raj Sethi Case*. The advice by Shri DS Patial was responsible for an out of court settlement of the case.

*          The Society was clearly at fault in both the cases and was fighting the cases only to delay the inevitable outcome. There is no record of the amount paid to the lawyer hired to fight these cases in various courts.

7.         It should best be left to judgments pronounced by various courts in the cases listed above to gauge the competence of Shri DS Patial; differing personal opinions on his performance notwithstanding.

8.         Any controversy on above issues is unnecessary and totally avoidable. It is a waste of time and just not worth the trouble. There are bound to be differences of opinion on any decision by the MC. It is recommended that such differing opinions be discussed in MC meetings and a common response presented.
                                                                                                                       
Sd/xxxx
(Col Jagdish Madan, Retd)
                                                                                                            02 Feb 2014


Shri VS Nagar

Shri Ashok Emani
Shri Vinod Dangi
Smt  Vaishali Chitre
Col RD Sharma, Retd
Shri K Ramachandran         -           Vice President
Smt Swapna Ghose               -           President


Sunday, January 26, 2014

Monday, January 13, 2014

LOHRI CELEBERATIONS

Lori was celebrated in the Society with a very warm participation by residents. As per established custom, Mrs and Mr Subramaniam initiated the Pooja and lit the holy fire. The atmosphere of friendship and comradie marked the occasion.