Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Bansabati Co-Operative Bank Ltd., , ... vs Principal Cit - 8, Kolkata , Kolkata on 3 December, 2020
cites
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
C.I.T.-Iii vs The Baroda Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 29 July, 2005
In this case, we note that the view of
Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous, since Section 80P deduction has
been correctly granted by the Assessing Officer in consonance with the ratio of the
decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank
Ltd. (supra), so the view of AO is a plausible view and therefore Ld. PCIT erred in
invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the condition
precedent essential to invoke revisional jurisdiction. In such a scenario, the Ld PCIT
ought not to have invoked the power u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, the invoking of
the revisional jurisdiction itself is held to be bad in law and therefore quashed.
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Section 80AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S The Totgars Co-Operative Sale ... vs The Income Tax Officer on 30 September, 2008
Therefore we find that the Ld PCIT erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. (supra) and his decision
that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of justice cannot
be accepted. In the light of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court