9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be denied is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.5006/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Premanand J, DR Respondent by: M.K. Kulkarni ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue on 2.7.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 30.4.2013 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in directly to allow deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. NIL after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act for an amount of ₹ 52,02,014/-. During the assessment the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was examined by the Assessing Officer and the assessee was asked to explain why the claim of deduction under the said section 80P(2)(a)(i) should not be disallowed in view of the insertion of section 80P(4) of the Act effective from 1.4.2007. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, Assessing Officer held that the assessee is a cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. Thus, the assessee fulfills the condition laid do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral public at large or even to the members of the society. Even the bye-laws of the appellant does not provide for banking activities. Therefore, facts of this case are not identical with any of the case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the facts of the instant case are almost similar to the decisions relied upon by the appellant in the cases of (i) ACIT s. Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd 32 taxmann.com 69 Nagpur Tribunal and (ii) DCIT vs. Jayalkshi Mahila Vividodeshagala Souharda Sahakari Ltd 23 taxamnn.com 313 Panaji Tribunal where the activities of the assessees were limited to the members of a specific group and the area of operative was also limited to the acceptance of deposits of the membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
