Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.34 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80P in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
U.P. Co-Operative Cane Union ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 January, 1997
36. As regards the applicability of section 80P(2)(a)(i), we find that the assessee has given loans only to its members. Shri Patankar, manager, in his statement under section 132(4) at the time of search itself had stated that for drawing a loan, the person concerned must be a member of the society (p. 66 of the paper book). Further, the confirmation from the chairman placed at page 132 of the paper book reveals that the loans were provided only to members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has held that the definition of a member of a co-operative society should be taken from the relevant laws of the concerned state. As the society is incorporated under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the definition of a member and nominal member has to be adopted from the said Act. As per these definitions (p. 90 of the paper book), members include nominal members also who are admitted as per the bye-laws and the bye-laws 74 to 88 of the society clearly state that the society can admit nominal members. In view of the above facts, the assessee satisfies the conditions laid down under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and hence, it is entitled to deduction under section 80P of the Act. The interest earned by the assessee accordingly will be exempt under this section. The cash credits, even if taxed, will be considered as income from the same business, i.e., providing credit facilities to the members and, accordingly, they will also be entitled to deduction under section 80P and thus, the entire income of the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P and, accordingly, no addition is sustainable in the hands of the assessee-society.
Chander-Mohan Mehta vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 January, 1999
32. The decision of this Bench in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and the ratio laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In that case, it has been held that where an incriminating document is found, then it should be either accepted or rejected in toto. In the present case, no incriminating material has been found in the course of search. Further, the genuineness of application forms has been rejected in toto where the assessee has not been able to prove the same. Accordingly, that decision cannot be applied.
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif Bidi ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 September, 1957
The department has to prove neither the source nor the nature of the receipts, as has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Kalekhan Mohamed Hanif v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 669 (MP) which decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seth Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC).
Oriental Wire Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 August, 1980
He submitted that the same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Deo Prasad Vishwa Nath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC), by Calcutta High Court in Shankar Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), C. Kant & Co. v. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal), Oriental Wire Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal).