2002 (8) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing claim under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the fact that the business was not wholly done with the members only? - we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding claim justification despite business not wholly done with members only.

Analysis:
The case involved a co-operative society deriving income from various sources, including dealings with both members and non-members. The society claimed relief under section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the Income-tax Officer restricted the benefit to income earned from dealings with members only. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim based on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directing the full expenditure incurred on activities involving both members and non-members to be considered for the relief. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition filed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling.

The Revenue argued that post the insertion of section 14A by the Finance Act, 2001, no deduction should be allowed for expenditure related to exempted income. The Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation case provided guidelines on allowable expenditure in cases of exempt income, emphasizing the indivisibility of business activities for claiming deductions. The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation case highlighted that if the business is one and expenditure is wholly or exclusively for business purposes, irrespective of tax liability on certain activities, the entire expenditure should be allowed.

The introduction of section 14A aimed to disallow expenditure on non-taxable income. In this case, the assessee claimed indivisibility of its business, but the Income-tax Officer restricted the relief based on income earned from dealings with members. The court reasoned that since the assessee provided segregated income details, the business was segregable regarding exempted and non-exempted income. Therefore, the restriction of relief to income from dealings with members was justified under section 80P(2).

The court concluded that as the assessee segregated income and restricted it to dealings with members only, the relief under section 80P(2) should be limited to income from marketing agricultural produce of its members. Income from non-members was not exempted, thus not eligible for the benefit. Consequently, the question was answered in favor of the Revenue, and the reference was disposed of accordingly.