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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more