9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified in revising the assessments for the assessments years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12, for the purpose of denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The original assessments were completed by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. The CIT by invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act held that the assessee is not a primary agricultural credit society, since the principle business carried out by the assessee was for non-agricultural purposes. The CIT concluded that the AO has not conducted any enquiry and has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings: "15. Appellants in these different appeals are indisputably societies registered under the Kerala cooperative societies Act, 1969, for sort, KCS Act and the bye-laws of each of them, as made available to this court as part of the paper books, clearly show that they have been classified as primary agricultural credit societies by the competent authority under the provisions of that Act. The parliament, having defined the term 'co-operative society' for the purposes of the BR Act with reference to, among other things, the registration of a society under any State law relating to co-operative societies for the time being; it cannot but be taken that the purpose of the societies s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permit admission of any other co-operative society as member, except may be, in accordance with the proviso to sub-clause 2 of section 5(cciv) of the BR Act. The different orders of the Tribunal which are impeached in these appeals do not contain any finding of fact to the effect that the bye- 1aws of any of the appellant or its classification by the competent authority under the KCS Act is anything different from what we have stated herein above. For this reason, it cannot but be held that the appellants are entitled to exemption from the provisions of section 80P of the IT Act by virtue of sub- section 4 of that sect; on. In this view of the matter, the appeals succeed. 17. In the light of the aforesaid, we answer substantia1 question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
