ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NAVSANDESH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3954/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2017AY 2012-132 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 income from deposits with other banks was directly attributable to the assessee's banking business activities and was allowable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A)'s decision was found to be fair and reasonable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer had treated the assessee as a 'bank' and disallowed the deduction by invoking Section 80P(4).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on its income from deposits with other banks, or if it should be treated as a bank and denied the deduction under Section 80P(4).

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Hearing: 23.03.2017Pronounced: 29.03.2017

अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Ramesh S. Iyer सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 23.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 10.06.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-33, Mumbai dated 28.3.2016 for the assessment year 2012-2013.

2.

In this appeal, assessee raised three grounds in toto and they relate to the allowablility of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of certain receipts. Assessee claimed that it is a „society‟ and not a „bank‟. However, AO treated the same as a “bank” and invoked the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority.

3.

During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO.

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 →