2019 (10) TMI 1557 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) and (d) - HELD THAT - It has not been shown to us that the respondent has in any manner breached Section 80P(2)(a) and (d) of the Act. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Thus, not entertained. Deduction u/s 80P(4) - Tribunal allowing the relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee being Co-operative Credit Society is not a Co-operative Bank hence entitled for deduction u/s 80P(4) - HELD THAT - We find that the issue raised herein was a subject matter of consideration by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 2017 (3) TMI 1799 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein identical issues raised by the Revenue were not entertained. This as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue s appeal before it by relying upon the decision of its co-ordinate bench in the case of Kulswami Co-operative Society 2014 (4) TMI 355 - ITAT MUMBAI No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Interpretation of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a) and (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Determining eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(4) for a Co-operative Credit Society.

Analysis:

1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contested the Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue raised two questions of law for consideration by the High Court.

2. Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a) and (d): The Court found no breach of Section 80P(2)(a) and (d) by the respondent, leading to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, thus not entertained.

3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(4): The Court referenced a previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., where similar issues were dismissed for not raising substantial questions of law. The Tribunal's decision in the present case was based on a similar precedent, and as per the Court's previous order, the question proposed did not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence not entertained.

4. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal's decision relied on a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the case of Kulswami Co-operative Society for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Therefore, based on the reasons provided in the Court's previous order, the questions raised by the Revenue were not entertained.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision in the matter.