9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regards the fact that the Notification No. SRO 1800 was an exemption provision, while Section 80P of the Act, as a deduction provision and therefore, since Section 80P of the Act deals with deduction relating to income of cooperative societies, and Notification No. SRO 1800 being an exemption provision they operate in different realms and SRO 1800 continues to co-exist alongwith the provisions of Section 80P of the Act. Whether in view of the introduction of Section 80P of the Act, Notification No. SRO 1800 stands withdrawn, in view of the language of Section 297 of the Act? - As held in the case of Ramanath and Company [ 2020 (6) TMI 158 - SUPREME COURT] deduction/exemption/rebate provisions are all falling in the same category, being incentive/beneficial provisions. Therefore, Notification No. SRO 1800, issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 60 or Section 60A , in our considered view, stands effectively superseded by the provisions of Section 80P of the Act, and there is no specific requirement for a formal withdrawal of such notification. Section 297(2)(l) of the Act contains a clear cut wording that once a specific provision has been introduced to deal with a specific hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Ld. CIT(A) under Section. 250 of the I.T. Act is ab initio void being bad in law. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing exemption of income, as we are registered co-op society having exempt income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition into taxable income, They forgot to appreciate the facts that the assessee is registered co-op housing society, and working with concept of mutuality. Therefore, benefit of mutuality to be offered to the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing deduction claim under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As we never claimed any deduction under Section 80P of the Act, 1961. 6. Your Honour s Assessee pray to produce any other materials on fact in support of the case during the hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee / appellant filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 09.05.2017 declaring total income at 'NIL' after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,41,466/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. One of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act shall, not continue to remain in force if a specific provision has been made under this Act, to deal with income under a particular head. The Parliament has introduced Section 80P to deal with the taxation of Cooperative Societies, and therefore, SRO 1800 would no more be applicable in respect of deduction / exemption of income of Co-operative Societies. This view also finds support from the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Gopal Gram Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. [2015] 54 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat) in which it was held that where assessee co- operative society claimed exemption under Notification No. SRO 992 dated 22.12.1950 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which was repealed by IT Act, 1961, the claim of the assessee was to be decided according to Section 80P of the new Act. The Ld. D.R. further placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath and Company vs. CIT which has held that, exemption / deduction / rebate provisions are all essentially the form of tax incentives given by the Government and therefore the artificial difference between exemption to Co-operative Societies under SRO 1800 and deduction to Co-operative Soc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these decisions did not have the benefit of considering the impact of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Gopal Gram Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. 54 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat) , in which while dealing with the identical issue before us, the High Court held that where assessee co-operative society claimed exemption under Notification No. SRO/992 dated 22.12.1950 of Income Tax Act, 1922, which was repealed by Income Tax Act, 1961, claim of assessee was to be decided according to Section 80P. Further, reliance by the assessee on the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maharao Bhim Singh (supra) cannot be accepted since this decision was rendered on a different set of facts, in which it was held that as long as an assessee continues to remain in occupation of his official residential palace for his own use, he would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(19A) for entire palace notwithstanding fact that a part of his official residence has been let out. Further, in our considered view, the case of the assessee is directly covered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Gopal Gram Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. 54 taxmann.com 132 (Gujara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 80P of the 1961 Act. 8. Accordingly, in our considered view, the case of the assessee is directly covered by the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, while dealing with identical question. 9. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath Co. v. CIT 116 taxmann.com 885 (SC) has made the following observations regarding the arena of exemption, deduction, rebate provisions: 19. Without expanding unnecessarily on variegated provisions dealing with different incentives, suffice would be to notice that the proposition that incentive provisions must receive liberal interpretation or to say, leaning in favour of grant of relief to the assessee is not an approach countenanced by this Court. The law declared by the Constitution Bench in relation to exemption notification, proprio vigore, would apply to the interpretation and application of any akin proposition in the taxing statutes for exemption, deduction, rebate et al., which all are essentially the form of tax incentives given by the Government to incite or encourage or support any particular activity. 10. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the fine distinction sought to be drawn by the counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80P of the Act, and there is no specific requirement for a formal withdrawal of such notification. Section 297(2)(l) of the Act contains a clear cut wording that once a specific provision has been introduced to deal with a specific head of income, then any notification issued under Section 60/60A under the repealed Act shall not continue to remain in force. The specific omission of the words until rescinded by the Central Government omitted w.e.f. 09.09.1972 also lends support to the fact that no specific notification withdrawing the erstwhile Notification No. SRO 1800 is required, once Section 80P has been introduced specifically to deal with deduction relating to taxability of income earned by cooperative societies. Further, so far as the proviso to Section 297(2)(l) of the Act is concerned, the Karnataka High Court in the case of H.H. Sri Jaya Chamaraja Wadiyar, Maharaja of Mysore vs. Union of India 129 ITR 652 has clarified that power to rescind any Notification was not created by or flowed from the proviso to the said Section (Sections 60A or proviso to Section 297(2)) and the proviso merely recognises this power. The Central Government has inherent power to rescind any N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
