Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
C I T-1 Jaipur vs M/S Jaipur Central Cop Bank Ltd on 27 August, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.237/2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur (Raj.) vs. M/s.Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27th August, 2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr.J.K. Singhi Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Anuroop Singhi & Mr. O.P. Pareek, for appellant. Heard.
The question raised in this appeal is that only 7.5% allowance is admissible to the Cooperative Bank not 10% as allowed as per the provision contained in Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). Provision contained in Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of 1961 is quoted below :-
(a) a scheduled bank [not being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India] or a non-scheduled bank [or a co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank], an amount [not exceeding seven and one-half per cent] of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA) and an amount not exceeding [Ten] per cent of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner.
The definition of rural bank has been given in Explanation (ia), the same is also quoted below :-
(ia) rural branch means a branch of a scheduled bank [or a non-scheduled bank] situated in a place which has a population of not more than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year.
It is apparent that when the population where bank is situated was within the category of rural area i.e. not more than ten thousand, entitlement is of 10%. Thus, 10% allowance has been rightly granted by the CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid, the appeal of the Department has rightly been dismissed by the ITAT. Orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are found to be in accordance with law. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. Sanjay S.No .
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Sanjay Solanki JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT