9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) to the assessee despite the fact that the assessee is carrying on banking business and other business. The assessee is a cooperative credit society. The assessee filed its return of income on 10.9.2012 declaring a total income at Rs.NIL after claiming deductin u/s 80P of the Act. The case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and served upon it. The assessee is a Co-operative Society and Registered under the Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The object of the Society is to enable its members to obtain loan from the Society. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received an interest on loans given to its members and also interest from the deposits made with co-operative banks and scheduled banks and claimed deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest received from the schedule bank. The AO issued show cause notice as to why the deduction claimed under section 80P should not be disallowed by rejecting the submission of the assessee that similar deduction has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.07.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 30.04.2013 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 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) erred in directing to allow deduction u/s 80P to the assessee even though assessee carries on the banking business and other business in the name of a credit cooperative society. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) without considering insertion of section 80P(4) and sub clause (viia) to section 2(24) vide Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the facts of the assessee‟ s case are not identical with any of the case laws relied upon by the AO especially decision of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Kekri Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd and Cochin ITAT in the case of Kerala State Coop. Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Rest of the grounds ie Ground no.2, 3 and 4 are argumentative in nature and therefore, they need no special adjudication. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as academic. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In view of the case being covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in its own case, the ground no.1 and 2 are dismissed. 6. The ground No.2 raised by the Revenue also stands covered by para 2.1 and 2.2 of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case order dated 23.5.2016 (supra), which is reproduced below: 2.1. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Rohit C. Kasat, at the outset, pointed out that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Punjab National Bank Employees Credit Society Ltd. (ITA No.3415 2935/Mum/2014) order dated 31/03/2016. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR, Shri Ganesh Bare. 2.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29.01.2016. Paras 6 and 7 of the said Tribunal's decision (supra) are relevant in this regard. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. RCF Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd (supra). On perusal of the said Tribunal's order (supra),we find, paras 6 and 7 are relevant in this regard. Considering the significance of the said paras 6 and 7 and also for the sake of completeness of this order, the same are extracted as under:- 6. Further, we have also perused the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Quepem Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs. ACIT [2015} 377 ITR 272 (Bom which was relied upon by the Ld Counsel for the assessee for the proposition that such lending activities do not constitute banking activities as the same are transacted between the cooperative society and the members of the society. Since, no public is involved the definition of 'banking' does not cover such activities. As such, there is no Reserve Bank of India's approval for conducting such banking activities in this case. He also relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
