PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/2/2019HC Rajasthan13 August 2019Author: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DINESH MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revenue's contention is unsustainable and that there is no substantial question of law involved. The Court reasoned that Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, unequivocally deems Regional Rural Banks as cooperative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that in the absence of a non-obstante clause, the imposition of a restrictive condition in relation to cooperative banks for regulating the benefit of Section 80P does not alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed cooperative societies, and all contingent consequences flow from this deeming provision. Therefore, the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with the Regional Rural Bank remains eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2). The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., a milk cooperative society, earned interest income of Rs. 2,09,91,701/- from deposits made with Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Bank. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) disallowed this income, denying the exemption under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had previously set aside this disallowance, noting that Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, deems Regional Rural Banks as cooperative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. The revenue appealed this decision to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interest income earned by the assessee, a cooperative society, from deposits made with a Regional Rural Bank is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the amendment to Section 80P by the introduction of Section 80P(4) and CBDT Circular No. 6/2010? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through the ITAT's prior decision, implicitly argued that the interest income is eligible for exemption. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's arguments before the High Court, but it refers to the ITAT's finding based on Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the grant of exemption under Section 80P(2) was not warranted. They relied on CBDT Circular No. 6/2010, which stated that interest income derived from deposits made with non-cooperative institutions, specifically Regional Rural Banks, does not qualify for the benefit under Section 80P(2). They also pointed to the amendment to Section 80P w.e.f. 1.4.2007, introducing Section 80P(4), which restricted the benefit to certain types of cooperative banks.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2),Section 80P(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 2/2019 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., 5 Km Stone, Ajmer Road Bhilwara (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. KK Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari with Mr. Lalit Parihar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment 13/08/2019 The revenue urges that the grant of exemption under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act of 1961) to the respondent-assessee was not warranted. The assessee, a milk cooperative society had deposited amounts and earned interest of Rs.2,09,91,701/-. The amounts were deposited with a Regional Rural Bank i.e., Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Bank. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals), was set aside by the ITAT, which noticed that Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, that bank’s setup under the enactment are cooperative societies for the purposes of Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue cites a CBDT Circular (No.6/2010 dated 20.9.2010) and contends that the Board categorically stated that interest income derived from deposits, made with non-cooperative (Uploaded on 19/08/2019 at 04:05:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:50:54 AM) (2 of 3) [ITA-2/2019] institutions and more specifically Regional Rural Banks do not qualify for the benefit under Section 80P(2) of the Act of 1961. Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 states as follows:

“22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a co- operative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to any tax on income, profits, or gains, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society.” The CBDT reasoning appears to be that Section 80P was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2007 introducing specifically that the benefit of exemption would not apply to any cooperative bank other than Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The circular then stated that in the light of this inclusion – to Section 80P by way of introduction of Section 80P(4), the exemption could not be availed of by the banks invested in Regional Rural Banks. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue’s contention is unsustainable. Section 22 in uncertain terms categorically deems Regional Rural Banks (of which description Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Banks answer to) as Cooperative Societies for the purposes of Income Tax Act. In the absence of non-obstante clause, the mere fact that a restrictive condition was imposed in relation to a Cooperative Bank for regulating the benefit of Section 80P, does not in any manner, alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed Cooperative Societies and all the contingent consequences that flow from it. (Uploaded on 19/08/2019 at 04:05:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:50:54 AM) (3 of 3) [ITA-2/2019] For the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ 42-CPGoyal/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/08/2019 at 04:05:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:50:54 AM)

More judgments on Section 80P(2)

All 332 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →