JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively, seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following two questions of law (for each of the two years) :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the rent receipts from the members to whom the rooms were let out by the assessed-club along with other facilities were not assessable to income-tax on the doctrine of mutuality ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from swimming pool and stadium should be taxed under the head ‘Business’ and not under the head ‘Income from house property’ ?”
2. We have heard and disposed of IT Ref. Nos. 282 & 283 of 1979 [reported as CIT vs. National Sports Club of India between the same parties raising similar questions though for different assessment years. Consistently with the view taken therein, these references are disposed of by answering the two questions as stated hereinafter.
3. Consistently with the view taken by us following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. , question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
4. As regards question No. 2, it is not clear from the order of the Tribunal if the swimming pool and the stadium were let out as properties to outsiders, i.e., other than the members. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the income from the swimming pool and the stadium at Bombay was rightly taxed under the head “Income from business” and not under the head “Income from house property”. The question is answered accordingly, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
5. No order as to costs.