THE GUJARAT STATE CO.OP. BANK-LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/48/1999HC GujaratGJHC24025206199929 November 2000Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH51 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (the assessee) is an apex cooperative bank engaged in banking. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision allowing deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 1988-89 and 1990-91 to 1994-95. The assessee filed a reference under Section 256(1) regarding the Tribunal's holding that interest income from short-term deposits of reserve funds and locker rent were not eligible for exemption. The Revenue also filed a reference regarding the deduction of profits from various reserve funds. The High Court heard these references and related Tax Appeals together as they involved interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The aggregate tax demands in similar pending cases were substantial, leading to intervention by other cooperative societies' counsel.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is permissible only for profits and gains attributable to the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members in the narrower sense. Regarding interest income from short-term deposits of reserve funds, the Court held that such income is not attributable to the core banking activity. The Court clarified that while reserve funds are necessary for a bank, the income generated from investing these funds in short-term deposits with other banks is not the business of banking itself. The Court answered Question 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Regarding the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, the Court found no substantial difference in the provisions concerning reserve funds, but this did not alter the core issue of whether the income was attributable to banking. The Court answered Question 2 in the negative, in favour of the revenue. Regarding locker rent, the Court held that running a safe deposit vault is not a banking activity or an activity attributable to banking properly so called. It is considered an additional business. The Court answered Question 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Consequently, the Court held that profits derived from utilizing various reserve funds are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Court answered Question 4 in favour of the revenue. The Court also clarified that this decision is confined to Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and does not deal with claims under Section 80P(2)(d).

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest income earned from short-term deposits with nationalized banks out of its reserve funds was not entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), considering the Supreme Court decision in 218 ITR 438? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act were substantially in pari materia with the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act regarding the utilization of reserve funds, and thus income from investment of such reserve funds did not fall within the scope of Section 80P(2)(a)(i)? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that locker rent is not entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)? 4. Whether the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable only for profits earned by carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, and not for income utilizing building fund, dividend equalization fund, investment reserve, depreciation reserve, and other reserves, which cannot be treated as normal banking activity? Assessee's contentions (implied from the questions referred by the Tribunal): The interest income from short-term deposits of reserve funds and locker rent are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as they are part of the banking business. The provisions regarding reserve funds in Madhya Pradesh are similar to Gujarat. Revenue's contentions: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is only for profits from the core business of banking or providing credit facilities to members. Income derived from utilizing various reserve funds cannot be considered as normal banking activity and is therefore not eligible for deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 256(1),Section 260-A,Section 6

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE Nos 48 and 49 of 1999 with TAX APPEAL Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Ci

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

All 4,983 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →