9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 205 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that after the introduction of section 80P(4) deduction was not available to co-operative banks - Held that - The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot, 2015 (1) TMI 821 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that a credit co-operative society giving credit to its members is not hit by the provisions of Sec.80P(4) of the Act as it does not possess a licence from RBI to carry on business and is not a cooperative bank. The object of introducing Sec.80P(4) of the Act was not to exclude the benefit extended u/s.80P(1) to co-operative society carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Thus the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and set aside the order of the ld. CIT to this extent. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - CIT has only directed the AO to examine whether the provisions can be applied or not. Admittedly, there was no enquiry by the AO on this aspect while concluding the original assessment, thereby rendering the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to this extent. We are therefore of the view that the order of the CIT insofar he directed the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the law is correct and calls for no interference.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i): The primary issue in this appeal was whether the assessee, a credit co-operative society, was entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT had set aside the AO's order, which had allowed this deduction, on the ground that Section 80P(4) excluded co-operative banks from such deductions. The CIT argued that the assessee was akin to a co-operative bank and thus not entitled to the deduction. Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that Section 80P(4) applies exclusively to co-operative banks and not to credit co-operative societies. The Tribunal referenced its prior ruling in the case of ACIT, Circle 3(1), Bangalore v. M/s. Bangalore Commercial Transport Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., which had established that the provisions of Section 80P(4) do not apply to credit co-operative societies. The Tribunal also cited the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) clarification No.133/06/2007-TPL dated 9th May 2007, which distinguished between co-operative banks and co-operative societies, emphasizing that Section 80P(4) targets only co-operative banks. Further supporting this view, the Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd., which held that Section 80P(4) does not apply to credit co-operative societies. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot, affirmed that credit co-operative societies are not hit by Section 80P(4) as they do not possess an RBI license to operate as banks. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and set aside the CIT's order on this matter. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The second issue concerned the CIT's direction to the AO to examine the applicability of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT noted that the AO had failed to disallow a sum of Rs. 70,941, which was shown as tax deductible but not deducted by the assessee, thus rendering the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT's direction, observing that the AO had not conducted any enquiry on this aspect during the original assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's order directing the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the law regarding this disallowance. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) but upheld the CIT's direction for a fresh assessment on the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
|
