Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 56 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
Section 28 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, vs The Totagars Co-Operative Sale ... on 16 June, 2017
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 deductable
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.
M/S The Totgars Co-Operative Sale ... vs The Income Tax Officer on 30 September, 2008
8. We find that the ratio of above case also applies to the present
case. As observed in the above case law, in this case also the
submissions of the assessee€s counsel is that the assessee society
is maintaining operational funds and to meet any eventuality
towards repayment of deposit the cooperative society is
maintaining some liquidated funds as short term deposits with
banks. Hence adhering to the doctrine stair desises, we hold that
the assessee should be granted benefit of deduction under section
80P(2)(a)(i). Accordingly, the interest on deposits would qualify for
deduction under the said section. Accordingly, we set aside the
order of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of
assessee. "
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
CoOperative 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 analysing 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.
Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises ... vs Income Tax Officer 21(2)(1), Mumbai on 25 April, 2018
In Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan
Premises Coop Society Ltd vs ITO, in ITA No. 6547/ Mum./2017,
vide order dated 25/04/2018, while dealing with the provisions
8 ITA No.194/NAG/2025
(Shri Saibaba Bahuuddeshiya
Nagrik Credit Co-op. Society)
of section 80P(2)(d) vis-à-vis section 80P(4) of the Act, the
coordinate bench of the Tribunal observed as under:
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".
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Klassic Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,, on 29 August, 2019
In this regard we may gainfully refer the Hon€ble
Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Solapur Nagri
Audyogik Sahakari Bank Ltd. 182 Taxman 231 wherein the following
question was raised.