Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Galaxy Co Op Hsg Society Ltd,Navi Mumbai vs Ito Ward(1)(1), Thane, Thane, ... on 29 April, 2025 cites

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, vs The Totagars Co-Operative Sale ... on 16 June, 2017

operative Society, from surplus deposits kept with a Cooperative Bank, was not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that in an earlier decision the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Pr.CIT v/s Totagars Co-operative Sales Society, [2017] 392 ITR 74 (Karn.) held that according to section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the amount of interest earned from a Co-operative Society Bank would be deductible from the gross income of the Co-operative Society in order to assess its total income. Thus, there are divergent views of the same Hon'ble High Court on the issue of eligibility of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest earned from Co-operative Bank. No decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was brought to our notice on this aspect.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 187 - Full Document

All Angels Educational Society vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 July, 2016

12. This Court further observe that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in another case i.e. All Angels Educational Society vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-III (2016) 72 taxmann.com 251 (Madras) also dealt with the identical issue by holding that having rejected the application on the ground of limitation, the question of examining the merits of the matter would not arise, as it is a superseded exercise.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Calicut on 12 January, 2021

11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Assessee is a Co Operative Housing Society. Thus, if any income as referred to in sub-section (2) to section 80P of the Act is included in the gross total income of the Assessee, the same shall be allowed as a deduction. It is pertinent to note that since the Assessee is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, it is required to invest or deposit its funds in one of the modes provided in section 70 of the aforesaid Act, which includes investment or deposit of funds in the District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Cooperative Bank. Accordingly, the Assessee kept the deposits in Co-operative Banks registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and earned interest, which was claimed as a deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the basis that the Co-operative Bank is covered under the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs CIT, Calicut, [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) while analyzing the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act held that section 80P(4) is a proviso to the main provision contained in section 80P(1) and (2) and excludes only Cooperative Banks, which are Co-operative Societies and also possesses a licence from RBI to do banking business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude Co-operative Banks that function at par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of the public. Thus, we are of the considered view that section 80P(4) of the Act is of relevance only in a case where the Assessee, who is a Co-operative Bank, claims a deduction under section 80P of the Act which is not the facts of the present case. Therefore, we find no merits in the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) in denying deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the Assessee.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 74 - Cited by 243 - R F Nariman - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973

We have to, with our highest respect to both the views of the Hon'ble High Court, adopt an objective criterion for deciding as to which decision of the Hon'ble High Court should be followed by us. We find guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., [1972] 88 ITR 192. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that "if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the Assessee must be adopted".
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 1168 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next