Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 126 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Mehsana District Central Co-Operative ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 August, 2001

Farrukhabad Gramin Bank vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 February, 2006

Similarly it was submitted that the decision in the case of Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank v. ITO (supra) and Karnataka Co-operative Society (supra) again relate to the SLR investment, which has been followed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case, though it was conceded on the objection of the Departmental Representative that Agra Bench has only considered the issue of non-SLR and the issue of SLR since allowed by the AO himself in the year was not considered. The Departmental Representative at this point of time again interjected that each decision has to be applied in the context of the ratio laid down therein and moreover, the principle of res judicata, and ratio decided in the case of income-tax proceedings is well established.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 117 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commssioner Of Income-Tax,, vs The Jalgaon District Central Co.Op. ... on 11 October, 2017

The ld. DR has not placed on record any other judgment contrary to the decision rendered in the case of Nizamabad District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee while computing aggregate average advances by rural branches has included advances by the branches which do not qualify to be categorized as „rural 7 ITA No. 367/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 branches‟. Thus, in view of the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Acit, Trichur vs The Irinjalakkuda Town Co-Op Bank Ltd, ... on 31 May, 2018

6.5 Later on, this judgment was considered by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Another vs. ITO (46 CCH 372) after taking note of the amendment made by the Parliament in Section 194A(3) of the Act by Finance Bill, 2015 with effect from 1,6.2015, it was held that the "express language of Section 194A does not indicate any retrospectivity, therefore, the assessee cannot escape the liability from deduction of tax at source from 1.6.2015. The Madras High Court clarified that before 1.6.2015, the assessee was not expected to deduct tax on the interest paid to its members. Accordingly, the question was answered in favour of assessee. In. view of this judgment of Madras High Court, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee need not deduct tax in respect of interest paid till 31.05.2015. This judgment of Madras High Court was subsequently followed in the assesse's own case by judgment dated 29.10.2015. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in assessee's own case in TC(A) No.588/2015 & others Madras High Court, after considering the amendment made in Section 194A of the Act by Finance Bill, 2015 with effect from 01.06.2015, found that the express language of Section 194A (3) clearly indicates that the exemption provided for deduction of tax from the payment of interest to the members by a co-operative society under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act shall not apply to payment of interest on any deposit by the cooperative banks to its members with 23 I.T.A. No.527-529 & 526//Coch/2015 effect from 01.06.2015. The Madras High Court found that after 01.06.2015, the assessee cannot escape from the liability of deduction of tax at source. The Madras High Court further found that the amendment made in Section 194A(3) of the Act was not retrospective in operation. It is intended to have prospective effect with effect from 01.06.2015. Accordingly, the question was answered in favour of assessee. It can be seen from the last portion of the portion extracted above that the very note explaining the clause was specific to the effect that the proposal was to bring forth an amendment with prospective effect from 1.6.2015. There is no dispute now that on and from 1.6.2015 the assessee cannot escape the liability from deduction of tax at source. Once an amendment is introduced for the purpose of removing the anomalous situation or for the purpose of removing the confusions both in the manner in which the provisions stood and the manner in which they were understood, the same could be taken only to have prospective effect. It must be pointed out that the Parliament did not choose to answer a question. Rather it chose to amend the provisions. It is now well settled that an amendment can only be prospective unless it is made retrospective by express language or necessary implication. Apart from the fact that the express language of Section 194A after amendment does not indicate any retrospectivity, the note explaining the clauses goes one step further in making it clear that it was intended to have prospective effect from 1.6.2015.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Jalgaon District Central Co.Op. ... vs Deputy Commssioner Of Income-Tax, Cir ... on 8 March, 2023

The ld. DR has not placed on record any other judgment contrary to the decision rendered in the case of Nizamabad District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee while computing aggregate average advances by rural branches has included advances by the branches which do not qualify to be categorized as „rural branches‟. Thus, in view of the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The West Bengal State Cooperative Bank ... vs Assessee on 3 August, 2016

13. That the learned CIT(A) erred in failing to understand the import of law that income earned from voluntary and wilful diversion of funds (beyond meeting the CRR and SLR and reserve requirements) is not income earned to further its statement of objects of creation as a co-operative and such diverted funds to earn income are not in consonance with the public policy and cannot be eligible to be rewarded with substantial tax benefits, and the decisions in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Bank Limited vs ITO 251 ITR 572 and Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited Vs CIT ought to have been better appreciated before granting total tax exemption to entire global income of the co- operative from every source."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The West Bengal State Co-Opt. Bank Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 August, 2016

13. That the learned CIT(A) erred in failing to understand the import of law that income earned from voluntary and wilful diversion of funds (beyond meeting the CRR and SLR and reserve requirements) is not income earned to further its statement of objects of creation as a co-operative and such diverted funds to earn income are not in consonance with the public policy and cannot be eligible to be rewarded with substantial tax benefits, and the decisions in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Bank Limited vs ITO 251 ITR 572 and Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited Vs CIT ought to have been better appreciated before granting total tax exemption to entire global income of the co- operative from every source."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Satavahana Grameen Bank, Hyderabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 August, 2009

In the absence of any contrary material or distinguishable feature brought on record by the revenue against the finding of the learned CIT(A) and keeping in view the ratio of various decisions relied on by the learned. CIT(A) Viz. Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 522 (SC), CIT Vs. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 (SC), AP Cooperative Bank Vs. Addl.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next