2016 (3) TMI 322 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant granted deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) as Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeals

ACIT, Circle-2 (1), Panaji – GOA Versus M/s Candolim Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, M/s Mahalasa Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, The Bardez Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, M/s The Old Goa Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' decision allowing the deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) for the appellant. It was determined ... Eligibility of deduction to the assessee under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act after following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Panaji in the case of M/s. The Quepem Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015 (6) TMI 573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein held contention of Ms. Dessai, learned Counsel for the revenue that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in view of the fact that it deals with non-members cannot be upheld. This for the reason that Section 80P(1) of the Act restricts the benefits of deduction of income of co-operative society to the extent it is earned by providing credit facilities to its members. As at the time when effect has been given to the order of this Court, the authorities under Act would restrict the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act only to the extent that the same is earned by the appellant in carrying on its business of providing credit facilities to its members. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:- Appeal filed by Revenue against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i):- The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) on the ground that the assessee was a cooperative bank and not entitled to claim the deduction under sec. 80P(4).- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by analyzing the definition of a Primary Cooperative Bank as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.- The Commissioner held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions to be considered a Primary Cooperative Bank as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, thus making the appellant eligible for the deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i).- The Commissioner's decision was based on the interpretation of the bye-laws of the society and the specific conditions required to be met to qualify as a Primary Cooperative Bank.- The Departmental Representative failed to point out any errors in the Commissioner's orders and could not provide any contrary decisions to challenge the decision.- The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, ultimately dismissing all appeals filed by the Revenue.This detailed analysis highlights the legal interpretation and application of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the eligibility for deduction under sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the classification of the appellant as a Primary Cooperative Bank as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The judgment provides a comprehensive explanation of the reasoning behind allowing the deduction and the lack of grounds for interference with the Commissioner's decision, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.