9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Availability of exemption under section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1980-81.
Analysis: 1. The appeal raised a question about the availability of exemption under section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an apex society formed by primary member societies for coordinating village labor utilization. 2. The assessee apex society had primary member societies nominating representatives to the apex society. The supreme authority vested in the general body meeting as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The managing committee had delegated powers that could not be interfered with by the general body. 3. The assessee claimed exemption under sections 80P and 80L of the Act, contending that it was engaged in collective disposal of labor and received subscriptions from primary societies, not commissions. 4. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, stating that the conditions of section 80P(2)(a)(vi) were not fulfilled as the assessee supervised labor co-operative societies but was not engaged in collective disposal of labor. The ITO relied on a previous judgment and denied the exemption. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of exemption, citing the proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(vi) and stating that voting rights were not restricted to labor-contributing individuals. The Commissioner rejected the claim based on previous judgments and mutuality. 6. The assessee argued that the receipt was income from business, satisfying the main condition of section 80P(2)(a)(vi). The assessee contended that previous judgments were not applicable as they dealt with different provisions. 7. The assessee further argued that the proviso did not apply as there were no individuals contributing labor as members, and voting rights were restricted effectively as per the proviso. 8. The opposing party contended that the conditions for exemption were not fulfilled, referencing previous judgments applicable to the case. 9. In response, the assessee emphasized interpreting provisions to advance the object and cited a case supporting not whittling down concessions without warrant. 10. The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) with the proviso. The assessee was engaged in providing collective labor of its member societies, and voting rights were effectively restricted as per the proviso. 11. The tribunal distinguished previous cases cited by the department, emphasizing the collective disposal of labor in this case. It held that the assessee fulfilled all conditions of section 80P(2)(a)(vi) including the proviso, allowing the appeal.
|
