Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1692 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80P - assessee has violated the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - the assessee was having 610 Associated Members with the assessee out of total 1559 Members and the percentage of Associated Members was 40% and as per the provisions of Karnataka Societies Act, 1959, a Co-operative Society can have a maximum of 15% Associated Members of total regular members prescribed under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1959 - HELD THAT - We decide the issue against the assessee and hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the IT Act in the facts of the present case because it is an undisputed fact in the present case that the assessee has violated the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and therefore the judgment rendered in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable and hence decide the issue by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act based on registration under the Cooperative Societies Act. 2. Violation of provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 affecting eligibility for deduction under section 80P. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal pertains to the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, challenged against the order of the learned CIT(A), Belgaum. The primary contention raised by the assessee was that the Commissioner erred in passing an order contrary to law and facts of the case. The assessee argued that they should be considered eligible for deduction under section 80P despite not being registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, citing precedents from ITAT Panaji Bench and ITAT "C" Bench Bangalore. The Tribunal noted the argument presented by the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) regarding the classification of Co-operatives under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, emphasizing that Co-operatives are a form of Co-operative Societies registered under the law in Karnataka. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had violated the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act by exceeding the limit of 15% associate members, as per the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case where it was held that non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act rendered the society ineligible for deduction under section 80P. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' decisions, citing similar cases where non-compliance with the Act led to disqualification for the deduction. Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed the violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 by the assessee, which was noted in the assessment order. The Tribunal referenced a specific paragraph from a Tribunal order in a similar case to support its decision. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's violation of the Act, particularly exceeding the limit of 15% associate members, was a crucial factor in determining their eligibility for the deduction under section 80P. By following the precedent set in the cited Tribunal order, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's non-compliance with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act rendered them ineligible for the deduction. The Tribunal, in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that the assessee's violation of the Act led to the dismissal of their appeal and the denial of the deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the non-compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, which resulted in the denial of the deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the violation of the Act's associate member limit and the precedent set by previous Tribunal orders and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
|