Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT

231 ITR 814Supreme Court of India1998#5829 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 80PSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 56

Issues it is cited on

section 194a(3)section 5(b)section 80p(1)section 194a(3)(v)section 80p(4)section 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(a)(i)gross total incomesection 80p(2)(d)section 80p(2)section 2(19)section 56

Judgments citing Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 574/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…w that the source of payment being a government agency acting as intermediary does not convert the mutual activity into one with non-members. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT (1998) (231 ITR 814), has held that for the purposes of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, as long as agricultural 13 G MEDAPADU PACS vs. ITO produce handled by the assessee belonged to its members it is entitled to exemption in respect of the profits derived from marketing of the same. 16. In the present case before us, there is no finding that the assessee soci…

HIMACHAL MITRA MANDAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD 1(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 777/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarhimachal Mitra Mandal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds Cooperative Credit Society बनाम Ward – 1(2)(3), Room No. Limited 419, 4Th Floor, Cumballa Hill C/O Vaish Associates, 106, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai – Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 012, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaah0613D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi,(Sr. DR)
Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 5

…ive Credit Society Limited co-operative bank. The nature of activities carried out by it i.e., accepting deposits and providing loans was the crucial factor in this determination. He also placed reliance on of Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC) and Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. IΤΟ [2018] 409 ITR 606 (Guj). Thus, the order treating the assessee as an “assessee in default” under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was upheld. 5. Before us, the ld.DR has relied on the orders of authorities below while the ld.AR has reiterated the same contentions as made before the ld.CIT(A). It i…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BKC,MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1209/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 194ASection 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8U

…deduction are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of deduction. In this regard, reliance is placed on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. &Ors. Etc. v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 814 (SC). The claim of the appellant is analysed keeping this position of law in perspective. 6.8 Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act: In Balance sheet, appellant has substantial quantum of 'Assets' in the form of ‘Investments'. These investments have been made in Fixed Deposits for statutory and other reserves, dividend equalization reserve and no…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. IDBI STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD , MUMBAI

ITA 1207/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 194ASection 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8U

…deduction are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of deduction. In this regard, reliance is placed on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. &Ors. Etc. v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 814 (SC). The claim of the appellant is analysed keeping this position of law in perspective. 6.8 Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act: In Balance sheet, appellant has substantial quantum of 'Assets' in the form of ‘Investments'. These investments have been made in Fixed Deposits for statutory and other reserves, dividend equalization reserve and no…

THE ITO, WD-2(2),RG-2, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.NAGAROOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 77/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 48/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.MUNDELA SERVICECO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 143/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

THE ITO, WD-4, KOLLAM vs. M/S. THE ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 134/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

THE ITO, WD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM vs. PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 121/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

M/S.PIDAVOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 414/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

THE ITO, WARD-2(3), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.MUNDELA SERVICECO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals are disposed on the afore-stated terms

ITA 151/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Sajith Kumar Das, CI
Section 80P(1)Section 80P(4)

…. Contrary to as was projected before us, it was not so in Peroorkada SCB Ltd. (supra), as a reading thereof would clarify. This, though, would be of no moment. This is as, as explained in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR 814 (SC), the correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in sec. 80P would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income fell within any of the sever…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 35 to 37/JP/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti cuke Pr.CIT-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) PAN No.: AABAP 8390 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K.…

JAIPUR PENSIONERS HITKARI SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 80P(2)

…on U/s 80P(2) of the Act on the interest from FDR and held in para 4 as under: “4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of ld.CIT(A). In the case of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. 231 ITR 814, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a Cooperative society is exempt from tax, what has to be considered is, as to whether the income falls within one of the several heads of exemption and if it falls within any one of the heads of exemption, it would b…

ITO, OOTY vs. THE BIKATTY INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE TEA FACTORY LTD., THE NILGIRIS

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA

ITA 709/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivasas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Vijaykumar, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…. The Tribunal was justified ingranting special deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act and no question of law arose from its order.” 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others reported in [1998] 231 ITR 814 has held as under : “For the purpose of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, so long as agricultural produce handled by the assessee belonged to its members, it is entitled to exemption. The expression ‘marketing’ is an expression of wide import. It involves exchange of functions such as buying and selling, physical function such as storage, transp…

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/305/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

Section 154Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(iv)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 305/2005 C I T ----Appellant Versus Raj Rajya Sahakari Kry-Vik San ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ Counsel For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR.…

THE CHITRADURGA CITY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,CHITRADURGA vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 302/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Anurag Sahay, CIT - III
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…nk Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 522 and referred to us the observation made at page 524 of the judgment ; and the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State ITA.302/Bang/2014 Page - 9 Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 814 and referred to us the observation made at page 819 of the judgment. They also relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 423 and drew our attention to pages 424 and 425 of the judgment. 5. Now, we will proceed to consider each one of the conten…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/251/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

…nclusion that the claim of the assessee cannot be considered for grant of tax exemption under some other provisions of the Income Tax Act. In view of the decision rendered by the apex Court in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited v CIT (1998) 231 ITR 814, it is not possible for us to accept that section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act; after the same came to be amended, so as to exclude “local authority” (s) from the benefit of tax exemption, would render the market committees ineligible for tax exemption under other provisions of the Income Tax Act. It must necessarily further be concluded that alt…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

ITTA/318/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

…nclusion that the claim of the assessee cannot be considered for grant of tax exemption under some other provisions of the Income Tax Act. In view of the decision rendered by the apex Court in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited v CIT (1998) 231 ITR 814, it is not possible for us to accept that section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act; after the same came to be amended, so as to exclude “local authority” (s) from the benefit of tax exemption, would render the market committees ineligible for tax exemption under other provisions of the Income Tax Act. It must necessarily further be concluded that alt…