http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M/S. BANKIPUR CLUB LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/1997

BENCH:

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

WITH

CA NOS. 505/92, * SLP(C) 22644/94, CA 3974/92, 4777-78/89,

4534/91, 1635/94, 1648-1649/94, 2380-82/94- SLP (C)

2811/94, CA 8046/95, 1773/92, 4303/95, 3840/96 AND 10194/95.

* CA 3382/97 ** CA 3383/97

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad

J. Ramamurthy, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advs, S. Rajappa, Dhruv

Mehta, B. Krishna Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, D.S. Mehra,

U. Rana, Rajiv Tyagi, Sudhanshu Tripathi, M.J.S.

Rupal, P. Mukherjee, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, (Manoj Swarup) Adv.

for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co., S.K. Aggrawal, Vinay Vaish and

Amarendra Sharan, Advs. with therm for the appearing

parties.

J U D G M E N T

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered.

PARIPOORNAN, J.

Special leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 22644/94 and

2811/94.

2. This batch of 23 cases was posted together. That was so

done on the basis that the same and identical point arises

for consideration in all of them. On further verification,

it turned out that in 7 appeals, the point that arises for

consideration is little different. On the question arising

in those appeals no arguments were advanced. So, the said

seven appeals are de-linked, to be posted later for hearing.

3. For convenience sake, the 23 cases including seven

appeals which are de-linked can be classified into 5 groups.

Group-A: C.A. Nos. 854-858/86 Commissioner of Income-tax *

Bihar v. M/s. Bankipur Club Ltd. Group-B: C.A. Nos. 505/92

and 3974/92 - Commissioner of Income-tax. Bihar-II v. Ranchi

Club Ltd., Group-C: C.A. No. 5382./97 (arising out of SLP

(C) No.22644/94 and C.A. No.10194/95 - Commissioner of

Income tax Bombay v. Cricket Club of India; Group-D: C.A.

Nos. 1635/94 * 1648-49/94, 2380-82/94 and C.A. No. 3583/97

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 2811/94) - Commissioner of

Income tax Jalandhar v. Northern India Motion Pictures

Association, Group-E: C.A. Nos. 4777-78/89, 4534/91,

8046/95, 1773 (NT)/92, 4303/95 and 3840/96 - Commissioner of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

Income tax, Kanpur v. Cawnpore Club Ltd.

4. As state earlier, the appeals coming within Group - E -

CIT, kanpur V. Cawnpore Club Ltd. (seven appeals) are de-

linked and they will be posted separately to be heard on

merits. We shall indicate the reason for this a little

later.

5. We heard counsel. The following vital aspects should be

borne in mind in adjudicating the question that arises for

consideration in this batch of 16 appeals (covered by Groups

A to D). The Revenue is the appellant in all the appeals.

The respondents in all the appeals are "Members' Clubs".

They are also called "social action groups". They are all

companies, registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act,

1956 - "non-profit companies". The respondents are assessees

to income tax. They claimed exemption on their "surplus

receipts" on the ground that they are "clubs" - a species of

mutual undertaking, and do not carry on any "trade or

business". They do not earn any profit. The income received

by the clubs by extending facilities to non-members is not

in issue in this batch of appeals. According to Revenue,

even the surplus receipts of the clubs by affording

facilities to its members, is "income" and so, taxable. That

is the sole question arising for consideration in this

batch of appeals.

6. Under the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act') what is taxed is, the "income, profits or gains

earned or "arising", "accruing' to a person". The question

is whether in the case of Members' Clubs - a species of

mutual undertaking - in rendering various services to its

members which result in a surplus, the club can be said to

"have earned income ar profits" In order to answer the

question, it is necessary to have a background of the law

relating to "Mutual trading" or "Mutual undertaking" and a

"Members' Club".

7. In Halsbury Laws of England, 4th Edition Reissue Volume

23 paras 161 and 162 (pages 130 and 132), the relevant law

is stated thus:

"Where a number of persons

combine together and contribute to

a common fund for the financing of

some venture or object and will in

this respect have no dealings or

relations with any outside body,

then any surplus returned to those

persons cannot be regarded in any

sense as profit. There must be

complete identity between the

contributors and the participators.

If these requirements are

fulfilled, it is immaterial what

particular form the association

takes. Trading between persons

associating together in this way

does not give rise to profits which

are chargeable to tax.

Where the trade or activity is

mutual, the fact that, as regards

certain activities, certain

members only of the association

take advantage of the facilities

which it offers does not affect

the mutuality of the enterprise.

xxx xxx

xxs

Members clubs are an example

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

of a mutual undertaking, but,

where a club extends facilities to

non-members, to that extent the

element of mutuality is

wanting............. "

(Emphasis supplied)

Simon's Taxes Vol.B 3rd Edition, paragraphs B 1.218 and

B1.222 (pages 159 and 167), formulate the law on the point,

thus:

"........ it is settled law that if

the persons carrying on a trade do

so in such a way that they and the

customers are the same persons, no

profits or gains are yielded by the

trade for tax purposes and

therefore no assessment in respect

of the trade can be made. Any

surplus resulting from this form

of trading represents only the

extent to which the contribution

of the participators have proved to

be in excess of requirements. Such

a surplus is regarded as their own

money and returnable to them. In

order that this exempting element

of mutuality should exist it is

essential that the profits should

be capable of coming back at some

time and in some form to the

persons to whom the goods were sold

or the services rendered.

......................."

"lt has been held that a company

conducting a members' (and not a

proprietary) club, the members of

the company and of the club being

identical, was not carrying on a

trade or business or undertaking

of a similar character for purposes

of the former corporation profits

tax.

A members' club is assessable,

however, in respect of profits

derived from affording its

facilities to non-members. Thus, in

Carlisle and Silloth Golf Club v.

Smith [1913(3) K. B. 75], where

members' golf club admitted non

members to play on payment of green

fees it was held that it was

carrying on a business which could

be isolated and defined and the

profit of which was assessable to

income tax. But there is no

liability in respect of profits

made from members who avail

themselves of the facilities

provided for members."

(emphasis supplied)

In British Tax Encyclopedia (I) 1962 edition (edited by

G.S.A. Wheatcroft) at pages 1200 and 1201, dealing with

"Mutual trading operations", the law is stated, thus:-

"In several early cases there

were dicta to the effect that a man

could not make a profit be trading

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

with himself this developed into

the proposition that when persons

contribute to a common fund in

pursuance of a scheme for their

mutual benefit, having no dealings

or relations with any outside body,

they cannot be said to have made a

profit when they find they have

overcharged themselves and that

some portion to their contributions

incorporate themselves into a

separate entity to carry out the

mutual scheme and the surplus

contributions are put to reserve

and not immediately returned. For

this doctrine to apply it is

essential that all the contributors

to the common fund are entitled to

participate in the surplus and that

all the participators in the

surplus are contributors so that

there is complete identity between

contributors and participators.

This means identity as a classs so

that at any given moment of time

the persons who are contributing

are identical with the persons

entitled to participate; it does

not matter that the class

may be diminished by persons going

out of the scheme or increased by

other coming in. .. ... ... ... ...

The doctrine now has

application in three areas. First,

it applies to mutual insurance

companies; secondly, it applies to

certain municipal undertakings and,

thirdly, to members' clubs, and

mutual associations generally,

whether incorporated or

unincorporated, except registered

industrial and provident societies.

... ... ... ..."

(emphasis supplied)

It should be noticed that in the case of "mutual

society or concern" (including a "Members' club"), there

must be complete identity between the class of contributors

and the class of participators. The particular label or form

by which the mutual association is known, is of no

consequence. The said principle which has been laid down in

the leading decisions and emphasised in the leading English

text books mentioned above, has been explained with

reference to Indian decision in "The Law and Practice of

Income Tax" (8th edition vol. 1, 1990) by Kanga & Palkhivala

at page 113, thus:-

"...... The contributors to

the common fund and the

participators in the surplus must

be an identical body. That does not

mean that each member should

contribute to the common fund or

that each member should participate

in the surplus or get back from the

surplus precisely what he has paid.

The Madras. Andhra Pradesh and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

Kerala High Courts have held that

the test of mutuality does not

require that the contributors to

the common fund should willy-nilly

distribute the surplus amongst

themselves: it is enough if they

have a right of disposal over this

surplus, and in exercise of that

right they may agree that on

winding up the surplus will be

transferred to a similar

association or used for some

charitable objects "

8. The crucial issue that arises for consideration in

cases where it is claimed that on the basis of the principle

of mutuality, the receipts by the "society" or "club" is

exempt from taxation, has been succinctly stated by the

judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Fletcher v.

Income Tax Commissioner [1971 (3) AJI ER 1185 at page 1189],

thus:

"... ... ... Is the activity, on

the one hand, a trades or an

adventure in the nature of trade

producing a profit, or is it, on

the other, a mutual arrangement

which, at most, gives rise to a

surplus?"

In substance, the arrangement or relationship between

the club and its members should be of a non-trading

character.

9. In C.A. Nos. 854-858184 (Group-A), the assessee is M/s.

Bankipur Club Ltd.. The appeals are preferred against the

common judgment of the Patna High Court rendered in T.C.

No.46-50/70 dated 14.10.1980 reported as Commissioner of

Income-tax, Bihar v Bankipur Club Ltd. (129 ITR 787). The

questions referred to the High Court are the following:

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case the

profits arising from the sales made

to the regular members of the club

is entitled to exemption on the

doctrine of mutuality.

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case the

directions given by the Tribunal

are valid in law?"

The assessment years involved are 1960-61 to 1964-65.

The assessee club filed "nil" returns. The assessee had

income from house property and also from business or

professica. The receipt under the head "sale of drinks at

the Bar" was alone disputed in all the aforesaid five years.

The Income Tax Officer held that the profit on the sale

proceeds of the drinks by the club in income and so, liable

to be taxed. It is seen that the main object of the club, as

per the memorandum of association, is to afford to its

members all the usual privileges, advantages, conveniences

and accommodation of a club. Clause 5 of the memorandum of

association makes a provision that upon a winding-up or

dissolution of the company if there remains any property

left after the satisfaction of all debts and liabilities the

same shall be paid to and distributed amongst the members of

the company in equal shares. Article 6 of Articles of

Association reads thus:

"Only permanent members shall be

deemed to be members of the club."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

Article 15 speaks of temporary members who may be

elected for non exceeding three months in any calendar year.

To become a temporary member the person would be a person

not permanently residing at Patna or within ten miles of it.

No entrance fee is payable by them, but they are to pay a

fixed monthly subscription. Under Article 5, the Governor

and the Chief Minister of the State may be invited by the

committee to become honorary members of the club. Article 17

is a provision for giving to the temporary and the honorary

members all the privileges of the club, subject to such

restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by the

rules or bye-laws of the club. They have, however, no right

to vote at a meeting or be elected on committees or bring

any guest. The assessments were upheld by the Appellate

tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee that the

principle of mutuality would apply in regard to the sale of

drinks at the bar. It was held that as regards sales to

regular members the profit arising from sales to them is not

liable to be taxed under the principle of mutuality. The

High Court adverted to the fact that nobody is allowed to

enjoy the privileges of the club other than its members and

the bar in question where drinks are sold is open to its

members, both permanent as well as temporary, and that no

outsider can purchase any drink from the said club. The High

Court took the view that while selling drinks to its

members, it is not done with motive of profit earning which

can be said to be tainted with "commerciality". The members

pay the monthly subscription and in addition, they enjoy the

benefit of this privilege of supply of drinks to them on

additional payment and so there is no profit earning motive

so far as this transaction is concerned. The Court

concluded that the profits arising from the sales of drinks

at the bar to the regular members of the club is entitled to

exemption on the doctrine of "mutuality".

10. In C.A No. 505/92 and C.A No. 3974/92 (Group-B), the

assessee is Ranchi Club Ltd. The main decision is one

rendered in T.C. 54/80, subject matter of C.A. 505/92. The

judgment is dated 24.9.1991 and is reported in Commissioner

of Income-tax v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [196 ITR 137 (FB)]. The

questions referred to the High Court are as follows:

"(1) Whether on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case. the

Tribunal has rightly held that the

assessee-club is a mutual concern?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case, the

Tribunal has rightly held that the

income derived by the assessee-

club from its house property let to

its members and their guests is not

chargeable to tax?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case, the

Tribunal has rightly held that the

income derived by the assessee-club

from sale of liquor, etc, to its

members and their guests is not

taxable in its hands"

In these cases, the assessee was a company formed with

the main object of providing a club house and other

conveniences for the use of its members and their friends.

The memorandum of association provided for contribution has

the members to the common fund of the club, guarantee

towards debts and liabilities, and upon winding up, their

participation in the surplus. Apart from the concept of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

"member" envisaged a in the memorandum, it had created one

more class described as temporary members. The temporary

members were not deemed to be members. For the assessment

year 1977-78. the assessee had filed its return showing its

income under the head property" representing the income

arising out of gross rent and reservation charges received

by it from persons other than members. But, the Income-tax

officer, while assessing the income, also the Income-tax

Officer, while assessing the income, also included the

amount received by the assessee even from its members on

account of rent from the club property and the receipts on

sale of liquor, etc, to its members and their guests. The

decision rendered by the High Court as summarised in the

head-note (196 ITR 137 at page 139) is as follows:-

".. .. that merely because

the assessee company had entered

into transactions with non-members

and earned profits out of

transactions held with them, its

right to claim exemption on the

principle of mutuality in respect

transactions held by it with its

members was not lost. The assessee

was a mutual concern. The income

derived by it from its house

property let to its members and

their guests and from the sale of

liquor etc.. to its members and

their guests was not taxable in its

hands."

(emphasis supplied)

11. C.A. No. 10194/95 and C.A. No...../97 (arising, out of

SLP (C) 22644/94) relate to the assessee, the Cricket Club

of India. The proceedings relate to Assessment years 1977-78

and 1978-79. Amongst others, the Cricket Club of India was

in receipt of income from property owned by it - chambers in

the building of the assessee let out to members, annual

value of the club house and annual value of Patiala

Pavilion. The above facilities were provided only to members

of the association and that too temporary accommodation. The

arrangement was essentially for the benefit of the members.

Following the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunals

Bombay Bench, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77

rendered in ITA Nos. 1730 and 1913 (Bombay) of 1980 the

appellate tribunal held that no portion of the Club House.

Patiala Pavillion etc. is let out to strangers and that

these portions are let out only to the members and so, even

if an income had actually accrued due from the members on

the above counts, it will not be taxable on the principles

of mutuality. In the application filed under Section 256(2)

of the Act, the High Court declined to refer the question of

law posed by the Revenue, to the effect, "whether the

appellate tribunal was justified in law in holding that the

income from the property held by the assessee could not be

brought to charge under the provisions of Sections 22 to 26

of the Act?" The decision was followed for the assessment

year 1978-79 - C.A. 10194/95 and the High Court declined to

refer any question of law for this year as well. In fact

both the years. the decision of the appellate tribunal to

the effect that the income received from the aforesaid

counts is exempt under the principle of mutuality, was not

doubted by the High Court? holding that no referable

question of law arose by its decision.

12.We now come to Group-D In C.A. Nos. 1635/94. 1648-49/94,

2380-82/94 and C A 3383/97 @ SLP 2811/94) come within this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

group. The assessee in this case is Northern India Motion

Pictures Association. The details with regard to the above

appeals are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------

S. NO. NO. ASSESSMENT REMARKS

YEARS

------------------------------------------------------------

1. CA No.1635 of 1987-88 Appln. U/S

1994 256(2) rejected

------------------------------------------------------------

2. CA Nos. 1648- 1982-83 & 1985- do

49 of 1994 86

------------------------------------------------------------

3. CA Nos. 2380- 1974-75 to 1976- Reference

82 of 1994 77 answered in

favour of

assessee

------------------------------------------------------------

4. SLP (C) No. 2811 1989-90 Appln. U/S.

of 1994 256(2) rejected

------------------------------------------------------------

The assessee is an association consisting of Film

Distributors and Exhibitors incorporated as a company under

Section 25 of the Companies Act? 1956 (Section 26 of the

Companies Act, 1913) in the year 1949 The income of the

Association consists of (i) admission fees, readmission

fees, periodical subscriptions from the members, etc. under

the head "others" and (ii) service charges from the members

for rendering specific services to the members under the

head "Service to the members". The income under the head

"Service to the members" was always offered for tax and

assessed to tax under Section 28(iii) of the Act and there

is no dispute about the same. The income under the head

"others" was claimed to be not taxable on the principle of

mutuality. The claim of the assessee for exemption from levy

of tax, on the ground of "mutuality" was denied in view of

clause 7 of the Memorandum of Association of the Assessee.

which was to the following effect:-

"If upon the winding up or

dissolution of the Association

there remains after the

satisfaction of all its debts and

liabilities any property whatsoever

the same shall not be paid to or

distributed amongst the members of

the Association but shall be given

or transferred to such other

institution or institutions having

objects similar to the objects of

the Association to be determined by

the members of the Association at

or before the time of dissolution

or in default thereof by the Prime

Minister of East Punjab, and if and

so far as effect cannot be given to

the aforesaid provision then to

some charitable object."

(emphasis supplied)

In an earlier assessment year, 1977-78 an identical

question relating to the same assessee arose before the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana in ITR No. 69/81. The decision

thereon dated 27.4.1989 is reported in Commissioner of

Income-tax v. Northern India Motion Pictures Association

[180 ITR 160]. The following questions were referred to the

High Court:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case. the

principle of mutuality is

applicable to the assessee's

receipts under the head 'Others'?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in

the circumstances of the case, the

Tribunal was right in holding that

the receipts under the head

'Others' were neither income liable

to be taxed under the head

'Business' nor under the head

'Other sources?

The facts in the said case and the decision by the High

Court are neatly summarised in the head note of the reports

at pages 160-161:-

"The, assessee was an

association and its members were

film distributors and exhibitor's.

The association protected the

rights of, its members in return

for admission fees and periodical

subscription and also rendered

specific services in return for

separate charges. The Income-tax

Officer wanted to subject the

assessee to tax on the income

derived from the admission fee,

periodical a subscriptions and

specific service charges received

from the members. The assessee

pleaded that the receipts were

exempt from tax on the general

principle of mutuality. The Income-

tax Officer did not agree with the

plea on the grounds that in clause

7 of the memorandum of association

it was provided that upon winding

up or dissolution of the

association, the remaining

property, after the satisfaction of

its debts and liabilities, shall

not be paid or distributed amongst

the members but shall be given or

transferred to such other

institution or institutions having

similar objects to be determined

by the members at or before the

time of dissolution, or in default

thereof by the Prime Minister of

the East Punjab and if this could

not be done, then, to some

charitable object and hence the

amount was not to go back to the

members. The Tribunal however held

that the income of the assessee was

not taxable. On a reference:

Held, that the contributors by

incorporating clause 7 did not

deprive themselves of the control

on the disposal of the surplus.

Ultimately, they could agree to

divide the surplus among themselves

or to contribute the amount to a

similar association or to a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

charitable trust. The assessee was

a mutual benefit association and

its income was not taxable."

The said judgment was followed subsequently in all

matters arising under Sections 256(1) and 256(2) of the

Act. So, for the assessment years which are subject matter

of cases falling under Group-D stated herein above, the

above decision reported it 180 ITR 160 was followed and the

income received by the assessee under the head "Others" -

admission fees readmission fee. periodical subscription from

the members etc. were held to be exempt or non-taxable on

the principle of mutuality.

13. The above four sets of cases falling in Groups A to D

shall alone be covered by this Judgment. With regard to 7

cases/appeals falling in Group-E the Assessee is Cawnpore

Club Ltd. It is seen that the income that was sought to be

assessed in the case of assessee, was one derived from

property let out and also Interest received from F.D.R.,

N.S.C. etc. In these cases the Court held that income should

be assessed as one from other sources" and not income from

property. It does not appeal that the larger plea that the

income is totally exempt on the principle of mutuality, was

decided in favour of the assessee in the appeals filed by

the Revenue the only question that may probably arise is

whether income received from the property let out and

interest by way of F.D.R's., N.S.C. etc. can be brought to

tax under the head; income from property". Since the issue

raised in this batch of seven cases, is not similar to or

same as the one involved in the other cases coming under

Groups A to D. we do not propose to deal either a with the

facts or the decisions rendered be the authorities in this

batch of cases (Group-E). All that we propose to do is to

delink the cases coming under Group-E and direct them to be

posted separately for hearing and disposal before an

appropriate Bench.

14. Now we turn to the main question canvassed be the

Revenue in the appeals coming under Groups A to D, namely,

whether the assessees, mutual clubs. are entitled to

exemption for the receipts or surplus arising from the

sales of drinks refreshments etc. or amounts received be

way of rent for letting out the buildings or amounts

received by way of admission fees periodical subscriptions

and receipts of similar nature, from its members? In all

these cases. the appellate tribunal as also the High Court

have found that the amount received by the clubs were for

supply of drinks? refreshments or other goods as also the

letting out of building for rent or the amounts received be

way of admission fees. periodical subscription etc. from the

members of the clubs were only for/towards charges for the

privileges, conveniences and amenities provided to the

members, which they were entitled to as per the rules and

regulations of the respective Clubs. It has also been found

that different clubs realised various sums on the above

counts only to afford to its members the usual privileges,

advantages, conveniences and accommodation. In other words,

the services offered on the above counts were not done. with

any profit motive and were not tainted with commerciality.

The facilities were offered only as a matter of convenience

for the use of the members. (and their friends, if any,

availing of the facilities occasionally)

In the light of the above findings, it necessarily

follows that the receipts for the various facilities

extended by the clubs to its members, as stated herein above

as part of the usual privileges, advantages and

conveniences; attached to the members of the club, cannot be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

said to be "a trading activity." The surplus - excess of

receipts over the expenditure - as a result of mutual

arrangement, cannot be said to be income" for the purpose of

the Act.

15. Our attention was invited to a few decisions which have

dealt with the subject matter in issue herein. The list of

the various English decisions has been succinctly summarised

in the textbooks which we have adverted to herein above

(Halsbury's Laws of England, Simon's Taxes, Wheatcroft

etc.). Particular stress was laid on the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax. Bombay City v.

The Royal Western India Turf Club Limited [24 ITR 551],

Commissioner of Income-tax. Madras v. Kumbakonam Mutual

Benefit Fund Ltd [53 1TR 241], Fletcher (on his own behalf

and on behalf of Trustees and Committee of Doctor's Cave

Bathing Club) v. lncome Tas Commissioner [1971 (3) All ER

(PC) 1185]. We do not think it necessary to deal at length

with the above decisions except to state the principle

discernible from them. We understand these decisions to lay

down the broad proposition - that if the object of the

assessee company claiming to be a "mutual concern" or

"club", is to carry on a particular business and money is

realised both from the members and from non-members, for the

same consideration by giving the same or similar facilities

to all alike in respect of the one and the same business

carried on by it, the dealings as a whole disclose the same

profit earning motive and are alike tainted with

commerciality. In other words, the activity carried on by

the assessee in such cases, claiming to be a "mutual

concern" or "Members' club" is a trade or an adventure in

the nature of trade and the transactions entered into with

the members or non-members like a trade/business/transaction

and the resultant surplus is certainly profit -- income

liable, to tax. We should also state, that "at what point?

does the relationship of mutuality end and that of trading

begin" is a difficult and question. A host of factors may

have to be considered to arrive at a conclusion. "Whether or

not the persons dealing with each other, is a "mutual club"

or carrying on a trading activity or an adventure in the

nature of trade".is largely a question of fact. [ Wilcock's

case - 9 Tax Cases 111, (132) C.A. (1925) (1) KB 30 at 44

and 45.].

16. In the result, we hold that ht judgment and orders

passed by the High Courts covered by Groups A,B,C And D, as

stated above, do not merit any interference. The reasoning

and conclusion of the High Courts in the judgments and

orders impugned are in accord with the settled legal

principles as laid down by Courts. The 16 appeals covered by

Groups A to D filed by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed

with costs, including advocate's fees which we estimate at

Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal.