9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption for co-operative societies. 2. Whether income derived by a co-operative society from commission for procurement of paddy and rice and reimbursement of transport charges qualifies for exemption under section 80P(2)(e). Analysis: 1. The case involved a co-operative society claiming exemption under section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for its income from commission received for procurement of paddy and rice and reimbursement of transport charges. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim stating that the income did not represent earnings from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal by the assessee. 2. The main contention was whether the income derived by the co-operative society from commission for procurement activities qualified for exemption under section 80P(2)(e). The assessee argued that the exemption should apply even for income received from processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. On the other hand, the departmental representative contended that the exemption only applied to income from letting of godowns for specific purposes. The Tribunal analyzed the language of the provision and noted that the exemption was for income derived from letting godowns for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. 3. The Tribunal referred to the wording of section 80P(2)(e) which specified that income derived from letting of godowns for specific purposes was exempt. They highlighted that the word 'for' indicated the purpose for which the godowns or warehouses were let out, and the income derived should be for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. Citing a precedent from the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the income must be derived from letting for these specific purposes to qualify for exemption. 4. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not derive income from letting of godowns for storage, processing, or marketing of commodities. Instead, the income was from commission for procurement activities and reimbursement of transport charges. As a result, the income did not qualify for exemption under section 80P(2)(e). They distinguished a previous case where the Tribunal found income derived from letting godowns for storage purposes did qualify for exemption, unlike the current scenario. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the claim for exemption. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the income earned by the co-operative society did not meet the criteria outlined in section 80P(2)(e) for exemption. The decision was based on the specific nature of the income derived by the assessee and its misalignment with the requirements for exemption under the provision.
|
