9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1120 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - assessee were essentially doing the business of banking, and therefore, in view of insertion of section 80P(4) with effect from 01.04.2007, the assessee will not be entitled to deduction u/s 80P - HELD THAT - In the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT we are of the view that there should be fresh examination by the Assessing Officer as regards the nature of each loan disbursement and purpose for which it has been disbursed, i.e., whether it for agricultural purpose or not. A.O. shall list out the instances where loans have been disbursed for non-agricultural purposes etc. and accordingly conclude that the assessees activities are not in compliance with the activities of primary agricultural credit society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2). The issue raised in these appeals is restored to the files of the AO. AO shall examine the activities of the assessee-societies - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
- Denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act by the CIT(A) based on the Assessing Officer's orders. - Classification of the assessees as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Bank. - Whether the Assessing Officer conducted a detailed examination into the nature of each loan disbursement to determine eligibility for deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. Analysis: 1. The appeals were against the CIT(A)'s orders denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, considering the assessees as essentially engaged in banking activities. This denial was based on section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act introduced from 01.04.2007. 2. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessees did not qualify as primary agricultural credit societies, leading to the rejection of their appeals for the relevant assessment years. 3. The assessees raised common grounds in their appeals before the Tribunal, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the legal precedents set by the jurisdictional High Court. 4. The High Court's Full Bench in a previous case emphasized that the Assessing Officer must conduct a detailed inquiry into the activities of the assessee society to determine eligibility for deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The court clarified that each assessment year should be separately assessed for eligibility. 5. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's conclusion regarding the nature of the assessees' activities was not adequately supported by detailed examination. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a thorough review of each loan disbursement to ascertain whether they were for agricultural purposes or not. 6. Given the legal principles established by the High Court, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the loan disbursements and determine the eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T.Act based on a detailed assessment of the purpose of each loan. The issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. 7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive reassessment by the Assessing Officer in line with the legal principles outlined by the High Court. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
|
