COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARIDVECHAN SANGH LTD.

ITR/58/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020136199412 December 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI57 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharidvechan Sangh Ltd., a co-operative society, filed its return for Assessment Year 1981-82 declaring Nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment at Rs. 2,55,888. The dispute arose over the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv). The assessee claimed deduction on gross profit from sales of agricultural articles, including to non-members. The AO, citing the case of Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., apportioned common expenses of Rs. 4,72,682 pro-rata, calculated expenses attributable to agricultural articles at Rs. 2,48,067, and net profit at Rs. 1,52,300. Further, he deducted net profits attributable to sales to non-members (Rs. 15,230) and allowed deduction of Rs. 1,37,070. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the AO to allow deduction on gross income.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) as claimed by the assessee on the gross income and not on the net income worked out by the Income-tax Officer. The Court noted that there were two lines of judgments: one in Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. suggesting apportionment of expenditure, and another in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation suggesting that if the business is indivisible, the entire expenditure is permissible. The Court emphasized that Section 80P was introduced to encourage the co-operative sector and should be interpreted liberally. Applying the ratio of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, which favors the assessee, the Court held that if the ventures constitute one indivisible business, the entire expenditure is a permissible deduction. The Tribunal's view that common expenditure cannot be apportioned from tax-free activities because it has no direct nexus with them, nor could it be said that it was not relatable to taxable activities, was found to be in consonance with the Apex Court's principles. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) as claimed by the assessee on the gross income and not on the net income as worked out by the Income-tax Officer? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that its business was one and indivisible, and expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the business was allowable in its entirety, irrespective of whether income from certain parts was not taxable. The Tribunal's finding that the decision in Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. was not applicable due to changes in the Act and that the Apex Court's decision in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. was applicable, supporting the indivisible business argument, was relied upon. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that deduction should be allowed only to the extent of net profits arising from the specified activities and that common expenses should be apportioned. The AO relied on the decision in Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 447 to apportion expenses. The revenue also placed reliance on Section 80AB of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(iv),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 80AB,Section 37,Section 10(29)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/58/1994 1/57 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 58 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s)

Versus JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARIDVECHAN SANGH LTD. - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR BB NAIK for Applicant MR SN SOPARKAR, Senior Advocate as amicus curie for Respondent ================================================================== CORAM :  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 12/12/2005 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(iv)

All 39 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →