THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1

PDF · subscribers
ITA/173/2014HC KeralaKLHC01026739201425 August 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the appellant, a District Co-operative Bank, is not eligible for the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to its rural branch. The Court based its decision on two previous bench decisions of the same High Court: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Limited [(2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker)] and another bench decision in I.T.A.No.258 of 2013. The Court found these precedents directly covered the issue and respectfully agreed with their reasoning. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an Income Tax Appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The appeal challenges an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The core issue pertains to a claim for deduction made by the appellant under Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning a rural branch. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kottayam. The procedural history indicates this is an appeal against an ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant, a District Co-operative Bank, is eligible for a deduction in relation to a rural branch as per Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The appellant, The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(a) for its rural branch. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contested this claim. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond contesting the claim. However, the High Court's decision implies the revenue's position was that such a deduction was not permissible for the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viia)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936 ITA.No. 173 of 2014 () ----------------------- ITA 515/2013 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT : ------------------------------ THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT : -------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No.173 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 25th August, 2014. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Department. The issue raised in this I.T. Appeal relates to a claim for deduction in relation to a rural branch as per Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The claim was made by a District Cooperative Bank. That issue stands covered against the appellant by the bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Limited [(2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker)] and another bench decision in I.T.A.No.258 of 2013. We have gone through those judgments and are in respectful agreement. We, therefore, follow them and dismiss the appeal. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs (true copy)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →