JAI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 2(1), BELAGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5/PAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 November 2022AY 2016-174 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that cooperative societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling that such societies fall within the definition of a cooperative society under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

Three assessees, engaged in credit cooperative activities, were denied deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) by the lower authorities. The denial was based on the ground that they were registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, and not under the Karnataka Cooperative Society Law.

What were the issues?

Whether cooperative societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 2(19)

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, PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.11.2022Pronounced: 25.11.2022

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA.No.41/PAN/2020
ITA.No.49/PAN/2021
ITA.No.5/PAN/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

2 ITA.No.41/PAN/2020, ITA.No.49/PAN/2021 And ITA.No.5/PAN/2022 ORDER

These three assessee’s as many appeals for A.Ys. 2014- 15, 2017-18 and 2016-17 respectively, arise against the Ld. CIT(A), Belagavi, separate orders dated 29.11.2019 passed in in proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”], NFAC’s Delhi Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036666602(1) dated 30.10.2021 and CIT(A), Belgaum, dated 16.12.2019 in ITA.No. CIT(A)/BGM/1010288/2018-19, respectively, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”].

2.

Heard all the assessees’ as well as the department. Case files perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that these three assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action denying them section 80P(2)(a)(i) deductions of Rs.34,04,313/- Rs.14,68,917/- and Rs.36,10,456/- respectively, for the sole reason that they are registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 then an eligible assessee covered u/s.2(19) of the Act applicable in case of a Credit Cooperative Society.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in respect of the impugned identical disallowance. Learned DR vehemently argued that both the lower

3 ITA.No.41/PAN/2020, ITA.No.49/PAN/2021 And ITA.No.5/PAN/2022 authorities have rightly rejected the assessee’s impugned deduction claims u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) since they are registered societies under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997 only than under the Karnataka Cooperative Society Law and, therefore, same deserves to be upheld.

4.1. All these Revenue’s arguments hardly deserve to be accepted. It emerges during the course of hearing that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Government of India, Ministry of Finance vs., Karnataka State Souharda Federal Cooperative Ltd., [2022] 134 taxmann.com 170 (Kar.) has decided the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department thereby holding that such cooperative societies registered under the Karnataka Souhadra Sahakari Act, 1997 very well come under the purview of a cooperative society defined u/s.2(19) of the Act. That being the case, I accept the instant assessees’ identical sole substantive ground in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing.

6.

These assessee’s as many appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

4 ITA.No.41/PAN/2020, ITA.No.49/PAN/2021 And ITA.No.5/PAN/2022 Order pronounced in the open court on 25.11.2022.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

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

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →