Our members' club keeps its surplus in fixed deposits with banks that are themselves corporate members — is the interest exempt on the principle of mutuality?
No. The Supreme Court held on 14 January 2013 that interest earned by a members' club on fixed deposits with banks that happen to be corporate members is taxable. Once the money goes into a bank deposit the closed circuit breaks: the bank lends it on to outsiders at a higher rate, so the funds are expended on non-members before they come back. All three conditions of mutuality fail — complete identity of contributors and participators, application of the surplus in furtherance of the club's objects, and the impossibility of members profiting from their own contributions. The club deals with the bank as a customer, not as a member.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ, judgment delivered by D.K. Jain J) on 2013-01-14, reported as 2013 AIR SCW 545; 2013 (5) SCC 509; (2013) 350 ITR 509; AIR 2013 SC (SUPP) 851; 2013 (1) AKR 522; (2013) 4 KCCR 393; (2013) 1 SCALE 365. It bears on section 2(24), section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Capital Gains Exemptions matters.
This is the leading authority on where mutuality stops in a club's accounts, and it draws the line at the bank counter. The club keeps mutuality on subscriptions and on the surplus from facilities supplied to members — the Court expressly said so — but loses it the moment that surplus is placed in the market for a return. The reasoning is transportable: what matters is not whether the counterparty is a member on paper but whether the club's money stays inside the circuit or is put to work on outsiders. The Court refused to treat the bank's membership as decisive, applying Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund and Royal Western India Turf Club, and warned that a club cannot claim mutuality twice over the same money. Any club, association or society arguing exemption on deposit interest, dividend or other investment income has to get past this decision first.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Bangalore Club is an unincorporated association of persons. For assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1993-94 to 1999-2000 it claimed that interest on fixed deposits placed with certain banks which were corporate members of the club was exempt on the doctrine of mutuality. It paid tax on interest from deposits with non-member banks, and it was already treating the surplus of members' contributions over expenditure as outside the charge on mutuality. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that identity between contributors and participators was lacking, and taxed the interest as business income. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed him and applied mutuality. The Tribunal affirmed, reasoning that the deposits were with corporate members and so the interest arose out of mutuality, and noting that the club had itself offered interest from non-member banks. On the Revenue's appeal under section 260A the High Court of Karnataka framed two questions covering a sum of Rs.7,87,648 of interest from four member banks, answered both for the Revenue, and restored the Assessing Officer's order, holding the relationship was that of banker and customer. The club appealed.
The appeals were dismissed with costs. Interest earned by the club on surplus funds placed in fixed deposits with the four member banks is not protected by mutuality and is chargeable to tax in the club's hands. The surplus amount itself — the residue of members' contributions and of the price paid by members for facilities, before it is deposited — remains exempt, and the Court did not disturb that. But interest on the deposits stands on a different footing. The Court held all three cumulative conditions of the mutuality principle to be violated. Identity between contributors and participators was broken because the member banks used the deposits to lend to their own clients. The surplus was not applied for any service, infrastructure, maintenance or other direct benefit to the members. And the funds, though they returned to the club, were first expended on non-members. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund was held to be on all fours: the interest bore the taint of commerciality.
The Court began with the principle that a person cannot make a profit out of himself, traced it through Styles, Cornish Mutual Assurance, The Bohemians Club and Royal Western India Turf Club, and adopted the three conditions summarised by Lord Normand in English & Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society: identity of contributors and recipients, treatment of the entity as a mere instrument obedient to the members' mandate, and the impossibility that contributors derive profits from a fund which can only be expended on or returned to themselves. Lord Macmillan's formulation in Municipal Mutual Insurance was taken as the cardinal requirement. Applying these, the Court accepted that up to the point where the surplus is generated the arrangement looks like a mutuality, with money flowing in a closed circuit. What breaks it is the deposit. In the ordinary course of banking the member banks lend the club's money to their clients, third parties wholly outside the mutuality. That ruptures the privity of mutuality and defeats the one-to-one identity. It also defeats the second condition, which requires a direct step with direct benefits to the club's functioning; a remote connection is not enough. And it defeats the third, because the money is expended on non-members before it returns, the bank profiting on the spread between the deposit rate and the lending rate. Nothing on record showed the banks ring-fenced the club's funds. Rowlatt J's distinction in Thomas v Richard Evans & Co, between money coming back to people as subscribers and as shareholders, was applied, as was the warning in Bankipur Club that dealings tainted with commerciality are trade. The club, already enjoying mutuality on the surplus itself, could not claim it a second time on the return earned by investing that surplus.
A façade of a club cannot be constructed over commercial transactions to avoid liability to tax.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held on 14 January 2013 that interest earned by a members' club on fixed deposits with banks that happen to be corporate members is taxable. Once the money goes into a bank deposit the closed circuit breaks: the bank lends it on to outsiders at a higher rate, so the funds are expended on non-members before they come back. All three conditions of mutuality fail — complete identity of contributors and participators, application of the surplus in furtherance of the club's objects, and the impossibility of members profiting from their own contributions. The club deals with the bank as a customer, not as a member. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ, judgment delivered by D.K. Jain J) and bears on section 2(24), section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 2013 AIR SCW 545; 2013 (5) SCC 509; (2013) 350 ITR 509; AIR 2013 SC (SUPP) 851; 2013 (1) AKR 522; (2013) 4 KCCR 393; (2013) 1 SCALE 365. This is the leading authority on where mutuality stops in a club's accounts, and it draws the line at the bank counter. The club keeps mutuality on subscriptions and on the surplus from facilities supplied to members — the Court expressly said so — but loses it the moment that surplus is placed in the market for a return. The reasoning is transportable: what matters is not whether the counterparty is a member on paper but whether the club's money stays inside the circuit or is put to work on outsiders. The Court refused to treat the bank's membership as decisive, applying Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund and Royal Western India Turf Club, and warned that a club cannot claim mutuality twice over the same money. Any club, association or society arguing exemption on deposit interest, dividend or other investment income has to get past this decision first. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Split the club's receipts in the return: subscriptions and the surplus from member facilities under mutuality, and interest, dividend and other investment income offered to tax — this is the split the Court approved.
The Bangalore Club is an unincorporated association of persons. For assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1993-94 to 1999-2000 it claimed that interest on fixed deposits placed with certain banks which were corporate members of the club was exempt on the doctrine of mutuality. It paid tax on interest from deposits with non-member banks, and it was already treating the surplus of members' contributions over expenditure as outside the charge on mutuality. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that identity between contributors and participators was lacking, and taxed the interest as business income. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed him and applied mutuality. The Tribunal affirmed, reasoning that the deposits were with corporate members and so the interest arose out of mutuality, and noting that the club had itself offered interest from non-member banks. On the Revenue's appeal under section 260A the High Court of Karnataka framed two questions covering a sum of Rs.7,87,648 of interest from four member banks, answered both for the Revenue, and restored the Assessing Officer's order, holding the relationship was that of banker and customer. The club appealed. The matter was decided on 2013-01-14 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ, judgment delivered by D.K. Jain J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeals were dismissed with costs. Interest earned by the club on surplus funds placed in fixed deposits with the four member banks is not protected by mutuality and is chargeable to tax in the club's hands. The surplus amount itself — the residue of members' contributions and of the price paid by members for facilities, before it is deposited — remains exempt, and the Court did not disturb that. But interest on the deposits stands on a different footing. The Court held all three cumulative conditions of the mutuality principle to be violated. Identity between contributors and participators was broken because the member banks used the deposits to lend to their own clients. The surplus was not applied for any service, infrastructure, maintenance or other direct benefit to the members. And the funds, though they returned to the club, were first expended on non-members. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund was held to be on all fours: the interest bore the taint of commerciality.
The Court began with the principle that a person cannot make a profit out of himself, traced it through Styles, Cornish Mutual Assurance, The Bohemians Club and Royal Western India Turf Club, and adopted the three conditions summarised by Lord Normand in English & Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society: identity of contributors and recipients, treatment of the entity as a mere instrument obedient to the members' mandate, and the impossibility that contributors derive profits from a fund which can only be expended on or returned to themselves. Lord Macmillan's formulation in Municipal Mutual Insurance was taken as the cardinal requirement. Applying these, the Court accepted that up to the point where the surplus is generated the arrangement looks like a mutuality, with money flowing in a closed circuit. What breaks it is the deposit. In the ordinary course of banking the member banks lend the club's money to their clients, third parties wholly outside the mutuality. That ruptures the privity of mutuality and defeats the one-to-one identity. It also defeats the second condition, which requires a direct step with direct benefits to the club's functioning; a remote connection is not enough. And it defeats the third, because the money is expended on non-members before it returns, the bank profiting on the spread between the deposit rate and the lending rate. Nothing on record showed the banks ring-fenced the club's funds. Rowlatt J's distinction in Thomas v Richard Evans & Co, between money coming back to people as subscribers and as shareholders, was applied, as was the warning in Bankipur Club that dealings tainted with commerciality are trade. The club, already enjoying mutuality on the surplus itself, could not claim it a second time on the return earned by investing that surplus. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "A façade of a club cannot be constructed over commercial transactions to avoid liability to tax."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2013-01-14 and is reported as 2013 AIR SCW 545; 2013 (5) SCC 509; (2013) 350 ITR 509; AIR 2013 SC (SUPP) 851; 2013 (1) AKR 522; (2013) 4 KCCR 393; (2013) 1 SCALE 365. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 2(24), section 4, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeals were dismissed with costs. Interest earned by the club on surplus funds placed in fixed deposits with the four member banks is not protected by mutuality and is chargeable to tax in the club's hands. The surplus amount itself — the residue of members' contributions and of the price paid by members for facilities, before it is deposited — remains exempt, and the Court did not disturb that. But interest on the deposits stands on a different footing. The Court held all three cumulative conditions of the mutuality principle to be violated. Identity between contributors and participators was broken because the member banks used the deposits to lend to their own clients. The surplus was not applied for any service, infrastructure, maintenance or other direct benefit to the members. And the funds, though they returned to the club, were first expended on non-members. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund was held to be on all fours: the interest bore the taint of commerciality. It arises in Capital Gains Exemptions matters, on section 2(24), section 4 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; D.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar JJ, judgment delivered by D.K. Jain J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not build the mutuality claim on the counterparty being a corporate member; the Court held that irrelevant once the bank lends the money on to its own customers. If you want to argue that a particular deployment stays inside mutuality, be ready to show the funds were ring-fenced and not lent out — the Court noted there was nothing on record to show the banks made any special provision for the club's money. Test any claimed exemption against all three conditions separately; failing any one is enough, and here the club failed all three.
Still good law. A citator search on the judgment returns 205 later decisions citing it. The Bangalore Bench held it 'squarely applicable' in Brigade Plaza Unit Owner's Association v Income-tax Officer (5 October 2018); the Kolkata Bench applied its limits on the principle of mutuality in the Saturday Club Limited orders of 6 November 2023; and the Hyderabad Bench in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Fateh Maidan Club (30 June 2022) treated earlier authority as displaced because it pre-dated this judgment. The Hyderabad Bench also draws on it in Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund v Income-tax Officer (24 July 2024). Nothing overruling or doubting it was found. The reasoning is doctrinal rather than statutory, so no amendment bears directly on it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The full judgment text was harvested and read. The batch line listed sections 10 and 11; neither is discussed in the judgment, which proceeds on the common-law doctrine of mutuality read with the charge and the definition of income in section 2(24), so they are left out. The judgment sets out the amount for only one year, Rs.7,87,648 of interest from four banks in the lead appeal, and does not give figures for the other assessment years. It also does not name the four banks or say what proportion of the club's total receipts the interest represented. The Court says the surplus itself remains exempt but does not analyse that limb, so the judgment is authority on the interest alone. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were dismissed with costs. Interest earned by the club on surplus funds placed in fixed deposits with the four member banks is not protected by mutuality and is chargeable to tax in the club's hands. The surplus amount itself — the residue of members' contributions and of the price paid by members for facilities, before it is deposited — remains exempt, and the Court did not disturb that. But interest on the deposits stands on a different footing. The Court held all three cumulative conditions of the mutuality principle to be violated. Identity between contributors and participators was broken because the member banks used the deposits to lend to their own clients. The surplus was not applied for any service, infrastructure, maintenance or other direct benefit to the members. And the funds, though they returned to the club, were first expended on non-members. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund was held to be on all fours: the interest bore the taint of commerciality.
TaxSphere, “Bangalore Club v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/bangalore-club-v-cit/ (validity last checked 2026-08-29)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My members-only club owns its own club house and uses it for members. Can the Department tax the annual letting value of that building as income from house property?
My members' club charges for drinks, rooms and subscriptions and ends the year with a surplus. Is that surplus taxable income?
My company lends and takes deposits only from its own shareholders and shares the surplus among them. Is that mutual trading, so that the surplus is not taxable?
I got a government incentive that came to me as a higher free sale quota and an excise rebate, and I had to use it to repay my term loans. Is that taxable income?
