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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more