State Bank Of India v. CIT

389 ITR 578High Court2016#60 most cited

What is State Bank Of India v. CIT authority for?

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

817

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State Bank of India v CIT · Section 80P(2)(a)(i) · Section 80P(2)(d) · cooperative society · investment income · exemption · short-term deposits · securities · surplus funds · not business income

Also reported as

72 Taxmann.com 64241 Taxmann 163

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing State Bank Of India v. CIT

Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co Op Marketing Society, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 514/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co-Op Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Marketing Society Ltd., Mysore. K. R. Pet, K. R. Pet Taluk, Mandya 571 426. Pan : Aaaak 4566 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda H, Fca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Shankar Gowda H, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: Page 7 of 13 "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction u…

Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Latur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Aurangabad

ITA 1249/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assessment Year :2013-14 Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P Niwada, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ……….Appellant Pan No. Aaaar1864N V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2, Aurangabad ……… Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Ladda, A.R Department By : Shri Kalika Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-01-2022 Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Aurangabad, Dated 27.03.2018 Under Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 07/03/2016. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: “1. The Notice Issued U/S 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2, Aurangabad & The Order Passed U/S 263 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Passing The Order U/S 263, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. The Pr. Cit-2 Erred In Holding That Assessee Not Eligible For Deduction Of Rs. 75,38,534 U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income-Tax Act & Further Erred In Setting Aside The Issue To The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006 also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section…