9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAI] as held we cannot entertain the Revenue s contention that section 80P(4) would exclude not only the co-operative banks other than those fulfilling the description contained therein but also credit societies, which are not co-operative banks. In the present case, respondent assessee is admittedly not a credit co-operative bank but a credit co-operative society. Exclusion clause of sub-section (4) of section 80P, therefore, would not apply. In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed. Similar view is taken by the Tribunal s Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Mumbai Teleworkers Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [ 2014 (7) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI ] and in the case of M/s. Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [ 2014 (4) TMI 355 - ITAT MUMBAI ] - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80P without considering the facts that the assessee fulfils all the three conditions laid down u/s 56(c)(ccv) of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and therefore, falls in the category of a primary co-operative bank. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society engaged in the business of accepting and lending moneys to its Members only in the normal course of its activities. In the computation of total income, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.2,32,79,304/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the deduction allowable u/s 80P(2)(i) in the case of Co-op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sub-clause (viia) to section 2(24) vide Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. Thus it is stated that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order passed by the AO be restored. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the present issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT 'B' Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and facts being identical, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is found that the same issue arose before the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2010-11. The ITAT 'B' Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 5051/Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
