Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Arya Vysya Co-operative Society Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hassan.

2016 (2) TMI 601 - ITAT BANGALORE

Eligibility for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- Section 80P(4) is applicable only to cooperative banks and not to credit cooperative societies. The intention of the legislature of bringing in cooperative banks into the taxation structure was mainly to bring in par with commercial banks. Since the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, the provisions of section 80P(4) will not have application in the assessee’s case and therefore, it is entitled to deduction u/s 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

016 - SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, CA For The Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.11.2013 of the CIT(Appeals), Mysore relating to assessment year 2007- 08. 2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing financial services like accepting deposits and lending money to its members. 3. There is a delay of about 578 days in filing the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The assessee further preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) against the order of the AO rejecting the assessee s application u/s. 154. The CIT(A) relying on the decisions of Kerala Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd. v. CIT, 170 ITR 455 (Ker) and Addl. CIT v. UP Co-operative Cane Union, 114 ITR 70, held that providing credit facilities to the members was part of banking business. The CIT(A) was of the further view that the issue was highly debatable and cannot be a subject matter of rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een sworn to by Shri S.C. Navalgund, CA of the assessee, that he had advised the assessee that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. the claim of section 80P may not be maintainable at that stage and a second opinion in the matter may be obtained. It was only on basis of a second opinion that appeal ought to have been filed before the ITAT, that the assessee forthwith filed an appeal on 27.08.2015 which resulted in delay of 578 days. In the above c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Tribunal in Savayava Krushi Parivara Krishinivasa in ITA No.1055(BNG)2013 dated 4.4.2014, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and appeal admitted for adjudication. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. This Tribunal dealt with an identical issue in the case of Savayava Krushi Parivara Krishinivasa in ITA No.1055(BNG)2013 dated 4.4.2014, wherein the assessee was under a bonafide belief that appeal against denial of registration u/s. 12AA by the CIT has to be fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay of 980 days in filing the appeal. 7. In the present case, the delay of 578 days has occasioned due to bonafide belief on the basis of the advice of first tax consultant that there was no scope for further appeal and on receipt of a second opinion that appeal was maintainable for the claim of deduction u/s. 80P, the appeal came to be filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the delay is due to a reasonable cause and therefore the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

el Trib 372 and Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CTO (1974) 33 STC 180 (Madras) wherein it was held that any beneficial legislation applicable to the assessee can be considered under section 154, though not done under the original return. He further contended that the CIT(A) had decided on the issue of eligibility u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) based on case laws which are against the assessee, without considering those decisions in favour of the assessee. He stated that the CIT(A) erred in sta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e in filling of the return. 10. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ITO v. MSEB Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., 50 taxmann.com 210 (Pune Trib.). 11. Heard both the parties and the perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that section 154 will not lie in the case of a debatable issue as there is no error apparent on record. The CIT(A) has failed to consider the decisions of the jurisdictional Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ib.) had considered similar issue. In that case, the assessee was a credit co-operative society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The assessee filed its return of income without claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The return was processed and accepted. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO rejected the assessee s claim by order u/s. 154. On appeal, the CIT(A) on the point of rectification, observe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sulted into NIL demand as the deduction had been allowed. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that such mistakes are to be rectified u/s. 154 and even on merit, the assessee society was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 13. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that he CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i), though the same has not been claimed by the assessee in return of income. The Tribunal observed that it is settled l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version