bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2009 Sea Face Park Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer ..Respondent Mr.R.Murlidharan a/w.Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mulla & Mulla for appellant. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Following substantial questions of law sought to be raised in the appeal. 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law transfer charges received from the transferees is not covered by the principle of mutuality and is chargeable to tax ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law transfer charges received from the transferors in excess of alleged limits is not covered by the principle of mutuality and is chargeable to tax ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law non-occupancy charges received from members in excess of alleged limits are not covered by the principles of mutuality and are chargeable to tax ? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in taking the view that if an amount in excess of that prescribed in law was charged, the profit motive would pervade and mutuality would cease to exist and the amounts collected would be exigible to tax ? 5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law receipts on account of sale of scrap are not covered by the principle of mutuality and are chargeable to tax ? 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant fairly states that so far as first three questions are concerned, they are covered by the judgment of this Court in ITXA No.931 of 2004 Sind Coop. Housing Society Vs. Income Tax Officer decided on 17 th July, 2009 . In this view of the matter, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not press question Nos.4 and 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)