DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. SRI. BILURU GURUBASAVA SAHAKARI PATTIN SANGH NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1407/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 April 2017AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by earlier orders of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court, which had approved the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order which allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the assessee-society. The revenue argued that the society's activity of extending credit facilities was akin to banking and covered by Explanation to Section 80P(4).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee-society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when its activities are considered banking by the revenue, and if Explanation to Section 80P(4) applies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri M.K
For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA
Hearing: 18.04.2017Pronounced: 21.04.2017

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. Whether in law and on facts the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the activity of the assessee was covered by Explanation to section80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in law in holding that the assessee-society is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act despite the fact that the assessee-society is mainly involved in extending credit facilities to its members which is in the nature of banking activity, falling within the ambit of clause (viia) of subsection 24 of section 2 of the Act, introduced wef 01/04/2017? 3. Any other ground that may be taken up at the time of hearing.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention that the CIT(Appeals) has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following its order as well as the order of Tribunal in which it was held that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It was further contended that the view taken by the Tribunal was also approved by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court reported at 369 ITR 86 in assessee’s case is placed on record.

3.

The ld. DR simply relied upon the order of AO.

4.

Having carefully examined the order of lower authorities and the judgments referred to by the parties, we are of the view that the impugned issue is squarely covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. Since the CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue following its earlier order and order of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm his order.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of revenue stand dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of April, 2017.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →