The Milli Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. vs The Income-Tax Officer on 31 January, 2006
2) C.I.T. v. U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation 217 ITR 231 (All.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.04 seconds)The Ludhiana District Co-Operative ... vs Addl. Cit, Ludhiana on 31 January, 2019
"6.4. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned representative's and have also gone through the
relevant paras of the CIT(A)'s order and other documents to
which our attention was drawn during the cross of hearing. A
perusal of the printed balance sheet at page 25 there of
reveals that in the interest account appearing in the ledger
folio No. 254 credit in interest account was Rs. 16,40,882.95
ps. The debits in this interest account was Rs. 14,03,572.33
ps. Thus there was a net credit in interest account of only Rs.
2,37210. The details of credits in interest account aggregating
to Rs. 16,40,882 placed at page 17 of the paper book reveals
that the assessee received by way of interest an amount of
Rs. 13,93,250 from, Gujarat State Sahakari Marketing
Federation Ltd. For Loan given by the society for purchase of
groundnut, groundnut seeds, (HPS) and Til, etc. The CIT(A)
granted deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) on the aforesaid amount
of interest of Rs. 13,93,250 received from said Marketing
Federation. In our view the nature of interest income received
by the assessee from Gujarat Sate Sahakari Marketing
Federation Ltd. for loan given for the purchase of goods on
their behalf would clearly come within the scope of, exemption
provided under s. 80P(2)(d). The funds provided by the society
for purchase of goods on behalf of the said Federation would
be treated as investments with the other co-operative society
and interest income derived therefrom will be eligible for grant
of exemption under this section. This view is fully fortified by
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.
U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. (1989) 76 CTR (SC) 22:
The Bharuch District Co. Op. Milk ... vs The Pr. Cit-3, Vadodara on 31 August, 2021
According to Allahabad High court in case of CIT Vs. U.P. Co operative sugar factories "Net
income from interest received from cooperative societies ;'co operative banks computed after
deducting expenses debited to income and expenditure account relatable to earning of such
income is deductible under section SOP(2}(d).
Radhe Developers And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 29 June, 2007
The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. (1989) 76 CTR (SC) 22 : (1989) 176 ITR 435 (SC) also adopted a liberal approach in granting a deduction.
Income Tax Officer vs Bothra International And Ors. on 27 June, 2008
C.I.T.-Iii vs The Baroda Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 29 July, 2005
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd., , the Apex Court was called upon to resolve a controversy under the Indian Income-tax Act,1922 whereunder by Section 14(3) of the 1922 Act similar provision was made to extend certain advantages to Co-operative Societies. In the case before the Apex Court the assessee Co-operative Society earned interest on certain security deposits placed with agent and a question arose as to whether the same would amount to Sinvestment. The Apex Court held that there could be no dispute that the money provided by the assessee was by way of investment. In fact, if this money had not been made available the business as stipulated under the Scheme could not have been carried out and perhaps there would have been no business. After observing thus, the Apex Court took note of the term Sinvestment as follows:
Pacca Kalan Multi Purpose Coop. ... vs Assessee
CIT Vs. U.P. Co-operative Cane Union (1978) 114 ITR 70
(All) wherein it has been held as under:
The Singhbhum Dist. Central ... vs Acit, Jamshedpur on 24 May, 2018
i) In the case of Addl. CIT Vs UP Co-operative Cane union (1978)
reported in 114 ITR 70(All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High court
has held that Banking Business is a wide term and includes
many activities like discounting bills, hundies, cheque accepting
deposits and advancing loans etc. thus it includes providing of
credit facility. A Society may not be a banker in the wide sense
3
IT A N o . 1 5 0 / R a n / 2 0 1 6
A sse ss men t Y ear : 2 0 11 - 20 1 2
yet he may be providing credit facility which is a part of banking
business. The expression providing credit facility does takes its
color from the activity of banking. In order that banking or
providing of credit facility may constitute a business, it is
necessary that these activities must be chief source of income.
M/S.Perrorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, ... vs The Ito, Trivandrum on 26 June, 2019
14.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that
the audit of the Society is done as per the provisions of Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969. The Society does not have any power in appointing auditor
under the said Act or getting his accounts audited in time. The Ld. AR submitted
that the delay in completion of audit was not because of any default on the part of
the assessee Society. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of the High Court of
Uttarakhand in the case of CIT vs. Iqbalpur Cooperative Cane Development Union
Ltd. (356 ITR 343) wherein it was held that delay in submitting the audit report in
such a situation is a reasonable cause for the purpose of section 273B and penalty
under section 271B shall not be imposed.
M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2024
Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312 ; AIR 1959 SC 239,
pages 241 and 242. But, exemption made with a beneficial
object has to be liberally construed. (see : CIT v. U. P. Co-
operative Federation Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 435 ; AIR 1989 SC
915, at page 919 and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE [1991]
82 STC 225 ; AIR 1990 SC 27, at page 30). An exemption
notification cannot be denied full effect by any circuitous
process of interpretation.