Skip to main content

Credit co-operative society providing credit to its members cannot be treated as a ‘co-operative bank’ carrying on banking activities

The Assessee, in Income-tax Officer Vs. Somavamsha Sahasrajuna Kshatriya Credit Co-operative Society  is a credit co-operative society who provided credit/loan facilities to its members and accepted deposits from them. The Assessee had filed its return of income and declared its total income after claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’), on examination of the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, was of the view that the Assessee is in fact a bank as per Section 5 (ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act,1949 and therefore, as per the provisions of Section 80P(4) of the Act, it was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessment was accordingly concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act.

Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and in support of its claim for Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction, relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the very same issue. The CIT(A) after relying on the said judgment of Karnataka High Court has allowed the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The question for consideration and adjudication before this Tribunal is that whether the Assessee, admittedly a credit cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities, etc., to its members, is entitled to be allowed deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or whether the said claim is hit by the provisions of sec.80P(4) of the Act. 

The Tribunal observed that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the Assessee and against Revenue, by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in its order in ITA No.1574/Bang/2012 dated 19/12/2014 in the Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-2010, wherein following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sanagha Niyamitha in ITA No.5006/2013 dated 5/2/2014, it was held that a co-operative society providing credit etc., to its members cannot be treated as a ‘co-operative bank’ carrying on banking activities. Similar view was upheld by a co-ordinate bench in the Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-2011 also.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more