The Armed Forces Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1015/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6244 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B PRABHAKAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 13; 119

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. AY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1013/HYD/17 2009 - 10 THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECUNDERABAD [PAN: AAATT3927H] INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD 1014/HYD/17 2010 - 11 1015/HYD/17 2011 - 12 1016/HYD/17 2012 - 13 1017/HYD/17 2013-14 ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD 648/HYD/18 2014 - 15 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI B.PRABHAKAR, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THESE SIX ASSESSEES APPEALS ARISE FROM THE CIT(A)-7 , HYDERABADS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 12-10-2016 FOR AYS. 2009- 10 TO 2012-13, DATED 29-11-2016 FOR AY.2013-14 & DATED 13-11-2017 FOR AY.2014-15 PASSED IN CASE NOS.909/CI T(A)- 7/2014-15, 910/CIT(A)-7/2014-15, 912/CIT(A)-7/2014- 15, 913/CIT(A)-7/2014-15, 261/CIT(A)-7/2015-16, 0163/CI T(A)- 7/2016-17; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 2 -: 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2014-15 ITA 648/HYD/2018 SUFFERS FROM DELAY OF 7 8 DAYS. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION/AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 04-04-2018 ATTRIBUTING DELA Y OF 78 DAYS TO COMPILATION OF NECESSARY RECORDS AND OTHER FAC TORS, WE HOLD THE IMPUGNED DELAY IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR W ILFUL BUT FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE ASSESSEES CONTROL. TH E DELAY STANDS CONDONED. 3. THE ASSESSEES IDENTICAL TWIN SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS R AISED IN ALL THE INSTANT SIX APPEALS CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS O F BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION(S) DISALLOWANCE/ADDING INTE REST ON INVESTMENTS MADE IN NATIONALISED BANKS OF RS.16,51,240 /-, RS.15,64,689/-, RS.14,88,072/-, RS.17,73,263/-, RS.21,74,527/- & RS.22,31,150/- IN ALL THE ASSESSME NT YEARS FOLLOWED BY TRANSFER FEE PAYMENTS FROM INCOMING AND O UTGOING MEMBERS OF RS.5,10,000/-, RS.1,26,050/- AND RS.3,9 4,000/- IN ONLY FORMER THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS; RESPECTIVELY, THEREBY DECLINING MUTUALITY CLAIM RAISED AT ITS BEHEST. WE NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE INSTANT TWIN ISSUES ARE NO MORE RES INTEGRA . THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS COMMON ORDER DT.26-08-2015 FOR AYS.2007-08 AND 2008- 09 HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSEES MUTUALITY CLAIM REGARDING TRANSFER FEE AND DECLINED THE VERY RELIEF QUA INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS AS FOLLOWS: 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS A HOUSING CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY AND HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN INCOMES AS EXEMPT ON PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE AND B ROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,35,690/- IN AY. 2007-08 AND RS. 9, 25,475/- IN AY. 2008-09 AS TRANSFER FEE RECEIVED. IT WAS THE CONTEN TION OF THE AO THAT THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 3 -: THE TRANSFER FEE CHARGED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSIN G SOCIETY ON THE MEMBERS TRANSFERRING THEIR PLOTS WAS NOT A VOLUNTAR Y CONTRIBUTION AND NO MUTUALITY AMONG THE MEMBERS EXISTED, SINCE THERE IS NO IDENTITY BETWEEN CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPATORS. WHILE DENYI NG EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS, AO RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE OF PRINCIPLES OF M UTUALITY. AS PER AO, THE TRANSFER FEE PAID BY PERSON WHO WOULD BE OUT GO ING MEMBER CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROFITS, AS AGAINST TRANS FEREE WHO WOULD BE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROFITS, BUT NOT IN THE PAYMEN T. AS SUCH, IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTOR AND PARTICIPANT IS LOST. 2.1 LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. ITO [ 317 ITR 47] (BOM HC) AND ITD DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DAMODAR BHUVAN CHS LTD., [45 (11) ITCL 255] HELD THAT TRANSFER FEE PAI D WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAX ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. REVENUE W AS AGGRIEVED AND IS CONTESTING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY DO ES NOT APPLY TO THE TRANSFER FEE RECEIVED. 2.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. LD. CIT(A) HAS IN FACT CONSIDERED NOT ONLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 5.3 PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WAS COLLECTING THE TRANSFER FEE F ROM THE OUTGOING MEMBERS ON TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COLONY MAINTAINED BY IT, AS PER THE BYE-LAWS AND SUCH AMOUNT WAS SHOWN T O HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE COMMON PURPOSES SUCH AS MAINTENANCE OF PROP ERTY, ROADS, AND OTHER FACILITIES, ETC. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE TRANSFER FEE CHARGED BY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON THE MEMBERS, WHO TRANSFE R THEIR PLOTS WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND THERE EXISTS NO MUTUALITY, SINCE THER E IS NO IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTORS AND THE PARTICIPATORS, WITH THE CO NTRIBUTORS GOING OUT AND THE PARTICIPATORS COMING INTO THE CLUB. HOWEVER, TH E JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD HELD THAT THE. AMOUNTS COLLECTED / PAID VOLUNTARILY OR NOT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALI TY, AS LONG AS THE SAME IS GOVERNED BY THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY, AND THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE UNDER THE BYE-LAWS CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN TH E SOCIETY AND THE MEMBERS, WHICH IS VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO AND VOLU NTARILY CONDUCTED AS MATTER OF CONVENIENCE FOR RUNNING THE SOCIETY. HENC E, THE TRANSFER FEE COLLECTED BY THE SOCIETY, FROM THE MEMBERS ON TRANS FER OF PROPERTY, AS PER THE BYE-LAWS MAY NOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL ITY. THE OTHER ASPECT REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLASS OF MEMBE RS, SUCH AS CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPATORS AND THE MEMBERS AS W ELL AS ASSOCIATE THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 4 -: MEMBERS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE OUTGOING MEMBER, WHO SELLS THE PROPERTY PAYS THE FEE, BUT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROFITS AS A CONTRIBUTOR, WHEREAS THE INCOMING MEMBER AFTER PURC HASE OF PLOT PARTICIPATES IN PROFITS, AS SUCH THERE IS NO PRINCI PLE OF MUTUALITY. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF SIND CO- OP. HOUSING SOCIETIES VS. ITO (317 ITR 047), WHEREI N IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER: 'WE MAY NOW DEAL WITH SOME OTHER SUBMISSIONS ADVANC ED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CLASS OF MEMBERS MEANS, MEMBERS SUCH AS PERMANENT, TEMPORARY, HONORARY, ETC. THIS I S BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE CAN BE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF M EMBERS. IN A CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY THERE CAN BE MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATE MEMBERS. WE HAVE ALREADY QUOTED FROM THE JUDGMENTS WHERE REF ERENCE IS TO MEMBERS AS A CLASS AND THAT CLASS MAY BE DIMINISHED BY MEMBERS GOING OUT OR INCREASED BY THE' MEMBERS COMING IN. BUT THE CLASS REMAINS THE SAME. AS ALREADY NOTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN BANK IPUR CLUB (SUPRA), THE IDENTITY MUST BE AS A CLASS OF CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS AND IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE CLASS MAY BE DIMINISHED OR INCR EASED BY MEMBERS GOING OUT OR COMING IN. SIMILARLY, IT IS NOT NECESS ARY THAT EACH MEMBER SHOULD CONTRIBUTE OR EACH MEMBER SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE SURPLUS AND GET BACK FROM THE SURPLUS WHAT HE HAS PAID, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER THE SURPLUS.' THUS, BASED ON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION AND FACTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE MEMBERS AS CONTRI BUTORS AS WELL AS PARTICIPATORS, INCLUDING THE NEW MEMBERS REMAIN AS A CLASS AND SUCH CLASS MAY INCREASE WITH NEW MEMBERS JOINING AND DIM INISHING WITH SOME OTHER MEMBERS GOING OUT, WITHOUT AFFECTING THE PRIN CIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HENCE, THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED ON THE INCOME BY WAY O F TRANSFER FEE, HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A DDITIONS OF RS.16,35,690/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.9,25,475/- F OR A.Y. 2008-09, ARE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS, TREATED AS ALLOWED. 3. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS ORDER AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS ALSO FOLLOWING THE S AME PRINCIPLE IN VARIOUS CASES, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE REJECTED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IN ITA NOS . 80 & 81/HYD/2015 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT-SOCIETY HAS EARNED INTEREST FROM DEPOSITS MADE WITH THE BANKS AND INTEREST ON BANK BALANCES AS EXEMPTION FR OM TAX ON THE THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 5 -: PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. SUCH AMOUNTS WERE QUANTI FIED AT RS. 19,02,097/- FOR AY. 2007-08 AND RS. 19,85,909/- FOR AY. 2008-09. AO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB [340 ITR 121] DID NOT ALLOW ASSES SEES CLAIM. ASSESSEE TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE STATUS AND ACTIVI TIES OF THE SAID CLUB FROM THAT OF A HOUSING SOCIETY AND ARGUED THAT THE DECISION OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB [340 ITR 121] (SUPRA) DOES NOT AP PLY TO ASSESSEES FACTS. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, BASED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT INTEREST AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE BANKS ON SURPLUS FUNDS DOES NOT COME INTO THE PURVI EW OF PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY A O WAS UPHELD. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND RAISED AS MANY AS 10 GROU NDS ON THE ISSUE. THE GROUNDS ARE MORE OR LESS IN THE FORM OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE AND THE ONLY ISSUE BEING A GITATED IS WHETHER INTEREST RECEIVED FROM BANK DEPOSITS/BALANC ES IS COVERED BY PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY OR NOT? 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND DETA ILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL ON THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS TO BE UPHELD. HIS DETAILED ORDER IN PARA 6.3 IS AS UNDER: 6.3 PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT, AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS EARNED INTEREST FROM THE DEPO SITS MADE WITH BANKS AND INTEREST ON BALANCES WITH THE CREDIT BALANCES I N THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM TAX, ON THE PRIN CIPLE OF MUTUALITY. SUCH AMOUNTS ARE QUANTIFIED AT RS. 19,02,097/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.19,85,909/- FOR A.Y. 2008- 09. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB, (340 ITR 12 1) (2012) AND NEGATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE APPELLANT TR IED TO DISTINGUISH THE STATUS AND ACTIVITIES OF CLUB FROM THAT OF A HOUSIN G SOCIETY AND ARGUED ON THE NON-APPLICATION OF THE SAID DECISION ON THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, AND INSTEAD RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TELANGANA CO-OP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY 37 ITCL 119 (2011) AND DIT(E) VS. ALL INDIA ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WELFARE SOCIETY 184 CTR 2 74 (2013). IN THIS REGARD, IT IS RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT ON THE SAID ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SECUNDERABAD CL UB, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB (339 ITR 525) AND C ONCURRED WITH THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAN GALORE CLUB (257 ITR 263) AND THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD TO BE FINAL WITH THE SLP FILED BY BANGALORE CLUB ON SIMILAR ISSUE REJECTED B Y SUPREME COURT. THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 6 -: ESSENCE OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF AN DHRA PRADESH, ON THE ISSUE, IN THE CASE OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB RUNS AS UND ER:- '34. READING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT INT EREST EARNED EVEN FROM THIRD PARTIES WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE CHARGE OF IN COME-TAX, IN ALL TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS. THE RATIO THEREIN IS THAT, IF AN I NCORPORATED ENTITY IS ENGAGED IN TRADE, THE PROFIT FROM IT, EVEN IF THEY ARE TRANSACTIONS WITH MEMBERS, WOULD BE TAXABLE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTU ALITY WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. 35. THE DECISION OF THIS COURT WAS LONG PRIOR TO BA NKIPUR CLUB LTD. (1997 ) 226 ITR 97 (SC) AND CHELMSFORD CLUB (2000) 243 ITR 89 (SC), AND NO REFERENCE WAS MADE THEREIN TO ROYAL WESTERN INDIA T URF CLUB. (1953) 24 ITR 551 (SC). AS WE HAVE CONSIDERED THESE CASES IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THESE THREE JUDGMENTS, WE DO NOT FEEL COMPELLED TO APPLY THE RATIO IN NATRAJ FINANCE CORP ORATION (1988) 169 ITR 732 (AP). WE, HOWEVER, HASTEN TO ADD THAT, IF AN AS SOCIATION OF PERSON RECEIVES CONTRIBUTION FROM ITS OWN MEMBERS AND EARN S INTEREST INCOME BY LENDING THE MONEY TO THEM FROM OUT OF THE CONTRIBUT ION, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY MAY APPLY RENDERING SUCH INCOME NON-TAXAB LE. AS UNREGISTERED ASSOCIATION, LIKE THE SECUNDERABAD CLUB, PARKING TH EIR SURPLUS FUNDS WITH CORPORATE MEMBER BANKS TO EARN INTEREST IS ALTOGETH ER DIFFERENT FROM AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS LENDING MONEY ONLY TO ITS ME MBERS. FURTHER, AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN BANKIPUR CLUB LTD. (19 97) 226 ITR 97 (SC), 'A HOST OF FACTORS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION AS TO AT WHAT POINT DOES THE RELATIONSHIP OF MUTUALITY END, AND THAT OF TRADING BEGIN'. FURTHERMORE, THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BANK/BANKS WOULD DISQUALIFY APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARE LIA BLE TO BE SET ASIDE. BASED ON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB (SUPRA), AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HI GH COURT (SUPRA) IS ,SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE SOCIETY, FROM THE BANKS, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.19,02,097/- A ND RS.19,85,909/- MADE FOR A.YS. 2007-08 AND 2008-09, RESPECTIVELY, ARE UP HELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEAR, TREATED AS DISMISSED. 6. SINCE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE EXEMPTED UNDE R THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY, WE REJECT ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, AS THE INTEREST EARNED IS NOT FROM THE MEMBERS BUT FROM THE THIRD PERSON I .E., BANK IN WHICH THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 7 -: ASSESSEES SURPLUS FUNDS ARE PLACED. SINCE THE INCO ME RECEIVED IS FROM THIRD PARTY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PRINC IPLES OF MUTUALITY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT FACTS. THERE IS NO ME RIT IN ASSESSEES GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE REJECTED. CONSEQUENT LY, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES IDENTICAL PLEADINGS I N ALL THESE SIX APPEALS FAILS TO PIN POINT ANY FACTUAL DISTINC TION QUA THE INTEREST ISSUE IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY AND PARTLY CONFIR M BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES MUTUALITY CLAIM ON INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS MADE IN NATIONALISED BANKS. THE OTHER ISSUE OF MUTUALITY RELIE F PERTAINING TO TRANSFER FEE STANDS ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF TH E FOREGOING DETAILED REASONING ADOPTED MUTATIS MUTANDIS HEREIN. 5. THE ASSESSEES FORMER THREE APPEALS ITA NOS.1013/HYD/2017, 1014/HYD/2017 & 1015/HYD/2017 AR E PARTLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS THE LATTER THREE APPEALS ITA NOS.1016/HYD/2017, 1017/HYD/2017 & 648/HYD/2018 ARE DISMISSED IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST OF FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( S.S. GODAR A ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 01-02-2021 TNMM THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (GROUP) :- 8 -: COPY TO : 1.THE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, SAINIKPURI, SECUNDERABAD. 2.THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1) , HYDERABAD. 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD. 4.CIT(APPEALS)-7, HYDERABAD. 5.PR.CIT-7, HYDERABAD. 6.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7.GUARD FILE.