9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (4) of Section 80P and thus would not be eligible to deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act as claimed. AO shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details/submissions required which shall be duly considered before deciding the issue in the light of the observations above and the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] - Assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T. A. Nos.2681 & 2682/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - Shri Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member And Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act vide order dt.28.3.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at ₹ 75,09,230 in view of the Assessing Officer rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals)-5, Bangalore dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dt.1.8.2017. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2014 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1,03,30,715. The case was taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year also. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim and submissions put forth by the assessee that it was a co-operative society and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] - 5, Bengaturu in so far it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on total income of ₹ 75,09,226/- as against the returned income by the appellant of Rs.NlL/- after claiming eligibie deduction under section 80 P [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in law in denying the eligible deduction claimed by the appellant of ₹ 75,09,226/- under the provisions of section 80 P [2][a][i] and 80P[2][d] of the Act resulting in enhancement of assessment including confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir Singh 349 ITR 692, the Appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the levy of interest under section 234B 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru (2014) 369 ITR 86 (Karnataka). 3.4 The learned DR for Revenue contended that Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bangalore (supra) and that the SLP preferred by Revenue has been admitted by the Hon ble Apex Court, on the very same issue. 3.5 In Rejoinder, the learned AR submitted that the above issue; in so far as to whether a Co-operative Society was a Co-operative Bank has already been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. ACIT, repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial pronouncement of Hon ble Apex Court (Supra) as discussed above,the impugned orders of both the authorities below for both assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are set aside and the matter remanded to the file of the AO for examining/ascertaining as to whether the assessee in the case on hand has obtained a licence from the RBI to conduct banking business. If the assessee is found to be possessing a licence from the RBI to conduct banking business, it will be hit by the mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act and thus would not be eligible to deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act as claimed. Needless to add the AO shall afford the assessee adequate opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
