1 itxa3183-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3183 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Bajaj Bhawan Owners Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the appellant. Mr. K. Gopal with Jitendra Singh for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal, which read thus :- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.8,88,499/- on account of non occupancy charges holding that the said amount were received from members and not from the occupants and therefore the principle of mutuality was applicable ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.12,42,000/- on account of transfer fees / betterment charges on the ground of principle of mutuality ? 2 itxa3183-10 (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to assess the rental income of Rs.11,41,783/- for letting out the terrace under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s.24 ? 2. As regards questions (a) & (b) are concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the said questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by this Court in the case of Sind Co- operative Housing Society V/s. ITO reported in (2009) 317 ITR 47 and Mittal Court Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. V/s. ITO reported in (2010) 320 ITR 414 (Bom. Therefore, questions (a) & (b) cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question (c) is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decisions in the case of Sharda Chamber Premises V/s. ITO and ITO V/s. Cuffee Parade Sainara Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the appeals against the said decisions have not been filed by the revenue in view of the smallness of the tax effect. However, the counsel for the revenue is not in a position to point out any error in the orders passed by the ITAT. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the appeal on question (c). In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)