GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PURULIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), PURULIA, PURULIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1490/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 December 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already received deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), rendering the appeal on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) academic. The appeal was dismissed, but the issue was left open for future assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative credit society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for its banking activities. The lower authorities denied this deduction, but the CIT(A) allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as an alternative claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was justified when deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was already granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

आदेश / ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

1.

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2018-10.

2.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in denying deduction to the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The plea of the assessee is that the assessee is a cooperative credit society and is engaged in the business of providing banking credit facilities to its members.

Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY 2018-19 3. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which was denied to it on the ground that the assessee had deposited the surplus funds in nationalised banks and that the interest received from nationalised banks was not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the assessee in the alternative was entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that after giving appeal effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), there is no current tax liability on the assessee. That the assessee has filed the present appeal on the ground that the action of the lower authorities in rejecting the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was not justified.

4.

It is to be noted that the assessee has already been granted relief in the shape of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal has been rendered academic in nature, the same is kept open to be decided in appropriate case. However, at this stage, the assessee has already been granted deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and there is no tax liability left on the part of the assessee. In view of this, subject to the aforesaid observation, the present appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. However, before parting with this order, it is made clear that it will be open to the assessee to contest the aforesaid issue in any other assessment year, if so required.

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 →