1980 (9) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether income derived from sale of goods on credit by the assessee to its members amounts to providing credit facilities under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax ActRs.
2. Whether the assessee, being an Urban Consumers Co-operative Society, is entitled to deduction under section 80P(1) of the ActRs.

Analysis:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the Tribunal sought the court's opinion on whether income from credit sales to members qualifies as providing credit facilities under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and if such income is deductible in computing the total income of the assessee. The assessee, a registered co-operative society, claimed exemption under section 80P(2) for income from credit sales to members, contending it provided credit facilities. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the activity of selling goods on credit was not covered under section 80P and that no income was derived from such activity. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the reference to the High Court.

Upon examining the provisions of section 80P, the Court noted that the deduction for co-operative societies applies to profits and gains attributable to specific activities listed in sub-section (2). As the Tribunal found no income attributable to providing credit facilities, the Court reframed the question to focus on whether the income derived from credit sales was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Court concluded that since no income was linked to selling goods on credit, the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) were not applicable in this case, ruling in favor of the revenue authorities.

The Court also addressed the second question regarding the assessee's entitlement to deduction as an Urban Consumers Co-operative Society. Both parties agreed that this question did not apply to the case, and the Court declined to answer it. Consequently, each party was directed to bear their respective costs in the reference proceedings.