GANGULI TOWN SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP/2826/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01004719202005 February 2020Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are co-operative societies and are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, challenged an assessment order. The case was similar to a previous writ petition where entities registered under the same Act were held to be co-operative societies.

What were the issues?

Whether entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, qualify as 'co-operative societies' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and are thus eligible for Section 80P benefits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 2(19)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 2826 OF 2020 (T-IT)

BETWEEN: GANGULI TOWN SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LTD. NO.5/215, NEAR CAR STREET, GANGOLLI, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576216. REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, MR. GANESH NAYAK.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C R BUILDING, N G ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575001.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD, UDUPI-576103.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.12.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 ORDER

The subject matter of this Writ Petition being substantially similar to the one treated in W.P.No.48414 /2018 (T-IT) between M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD. VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS, disposed off vide judgment dated 16.01.2020, counsel for the petitioner submits, same relief needs to be extended to the similarly circumstanced litigant herein on the principle of parity, there being no repugnant factors, disentitling him to an equal treatment.

2.

Learned Senior Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for the Revenue fairly submits that as yet, the said judgment is not put in challenge or review; however, he seeks liberty to the respondents to seek restoration of this Writ Petition for consideration on merits, by filing a Memo if the version of the petitioner emerging from the records is discovered to be untrue; the stand of the Panel Counsel is fair and reasonable.

3.

In the above judgment, this Court having held the entities registered under the provisions of Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are also Co-operative Societies and therefore, they are entitled to seek benefit under Section

3 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a declaration is made to the effect that the entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 fit into the definition of “co- operative society” as enacted in sec.2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore subject to all just exceptions, petitioners are entitled to stake their claim for the benefit of sec.80P of the said Act; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned notice dated 30.03.2018 at Annexure-D in W.P.No.48414/2018; other legal consequences accordingly do follow.

It is needless to mention that the other provisions of sec. 80P of 1961 Act and their effect on the claim of the petitioner-like-societies have been left to be addressed by the concerned authorities.”

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed off granting same relief as has been granted to the litigant in the aforesaid judgment, of course reserving liberty to the Revenue for seeking revival of the Writ Petition, if version of the petitioner is discovered to be untrue.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CBC

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →