THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI HITKARI VIDYALAYA SAHKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/89/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02055808202506 November 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to Regional Rural Banks (RRBs). The reasoning was based on Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, which deems RRBs as co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that in the absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant legislation or the CBDT Circular, the restrictive condition imposed by CBDT Circular No. 06/2010 would not alter the pre-existing situation. Consequently, RRBs would continue to be treated as co-operative societies and remain eligible for the benefits flowing from Section 80P. The appeal was dismissed based on this finding, applying the principle established in the case of PCIT Ajmer V/s M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against Shri Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahkari Shiksha Samiti Limited. The assessment year is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the dispute pertains to the applicability of a CBDT Circular. The order under challenge is the one passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the present appeal is being decided based on a previous judgment of the same High Court in a similar matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) despite CBDT Circular No. 06/2010 dated 20.09.2010? The Revenue's contention, as inferred from the judgment referencing a prior case, is that the CBDT Circular restricts the benefit of Section 80P. The Assessee's contention, also inferred, is that Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, deems RRBs as co-operative societies for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the benefit of Section 80P should continue to be available to them, as there is no non-obstante clause to override this position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 22

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:44486-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 89/2025 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan Udaipur Rajasthan Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001(Raj.). ----Appellants Versus Shri Hitkari Vidyalaya Sahkari Shiksha Samiti Limited, Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashisth For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order 06/11/2025

1.

The issue raised in the present appeal stands covered by the judgment passed in the case of PCIT Ajmer V/s M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.2/2019) dated 13.08.2019, where for the assessment year 2014-2015 the issue was decided, holding that the CBDT Circular No.06/2010 dated 20.09.2010 would not be applicable as Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 deems RRBs as Co-operative Societies for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961 and in the absence of non-obstante clause, the restrictive condition imposed with regard to regulation of benefit of Section 80P of the Act of 1961 would not change the pre- existing situation and they would continue to remain as

[2025:RJ-JP:44486-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-89/2025] Co-operative Societies and the benefit flowing thereto would be available to RRBs.

2.

The order passed on 13.08.2019, therefore, would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.

3.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) also stand dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/32

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →