CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 699/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee society does not fall under the definition of a co-operative bank or primary co-operative bank as its principal business is not banking and its membership is restricted. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative credit society providing credit facilities to its members, claimed deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, considering the society a primary co-operative bank hit by Section 80P(4). The CIT(A) upheld this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee co-operative credit society is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 80P(4) and thus disentitled to deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(4),Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri. H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.)
Hearing: 03/06/2024Pronounced: 07/08/2024

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 698/MUM/2024
ITA no. 699/MUM/2024
ITA no.697/MUM/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): The facts in all the three appeals are similar and issues arising are identical. The decision on facts and law for one appeal for any assessment year would answer the issue involved in the other two years. Therefore, all the three appeals are being decided by the common order for the sake of brevity. The facts only in ITA no. 697/MUM/2024 are being narrated as under:

1.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Mu

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →