YAMKANMARDI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA ITA No.5002/2011 BETWEEN: Yamakanmardi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, At Post: Yamakanmardi, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist: Belgaum, Represented by its General Manager, Shri Somshekar S/o.Mallappa Zutti Age: 28 years, Occ: Service, R/o. At Post: Yamakanmardi, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist: Belgaum. …Appellant (By Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate.) A N D: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Khimjibhai Commercial Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Belgaum.

2 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(3), Belgaum. ...Respondents (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Advocate.) This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order passed in ITA No.39/PNJ/2009, dated 12.11.2010, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, Goa, dismissing the appeal filed by an assessee, etc.,. This Appeal coming on for final hearing this day, K.L.Manjunath, J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT The assessee has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, in ITA No.39/PNJ/2009, dated 12.11.2010, wherein the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, in ITA No.96/BGM/06-07.

3 2. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment for the year 2003-04 had filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, which appeal came to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. The only ground urged in this appeal is that though the appellant is a Credit Co-operative Society, any deductions made under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not available for investment made in a private limited company or a public limited company. The said question has been covered by the decision of this Court in ITA No.5008/2009 dated 1.4.2011. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the appeal requires to be allowed answering the question of law formulated in this appeal in favour of the appellant assessee and against the revenue. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue is that there is nothing to show that the

4 appellant assessee is a Credit Co-operative Society. We cannot accept the arguments and the point raised by Sri Raviraj, counsel for the revenue, because the appellant’s name itself discloses that it is a Co-operative Credit Society Limited. When the name itself shows that it is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the main object of the society is only to advance loan as a Credit Co-operative Society. In the circumstances the contention of the revenue is rejected. The appeal is allowed answering the question of law in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the revenue. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Mrk/-