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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more