TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Delay Condoned, Deduction Dispute Resolved, High Court Judgments Key</h1> <h3>Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosahalli Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Hospet</h3> Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosahalli Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Hospet - TMI Issues:1. Delay in filing appeal for AY 2013-14.2. Claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.3. Appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision.4. Interpretation of judgments by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.5. Consideration of claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.1. Delay in filing appeal for AY 2013-14:There was a delay of 4 days in filing the appeal for AY 2013-14, attributed to confusion in reckoning the date of receipt of the order of CIT(A). The delay was deemed reasonable and genuine, and thus, condoned.2. Claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act:The primary issue revolved around the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act concerning interest income earned on deposits by the assessee, a cooperative society. Revenue authorities disallowed the deduction, citing that interest income should be categorized as 'income from other sources,' not derived from the business of the cooperative society. The plea regarding compliance with legal requirements for maintaining statutory reserves was not addressed. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, prompting the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.3. Appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision:During the appeal, the learned AR referenced a Karnataka High Court decision supporting the eligibility of interest income for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned DR countered with a subsequent High Court decision. The Tribunal analyzed the judgments and decided to remand the issue back to the AO for a fresh decision based on the precedents cited, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence.4. Interpretation of judgments by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court:The Tribunal scrutinized the High Court decisions to differentiate between claims made under section 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a) of the Act, emphasizing the source of funds for investments. The Tribunal concluded that the issue required further examination by the AO in light of the legal precedents cited.5. Consideration of claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act:In the appeal for AY 2014-15, the deduction claim under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) was contested due to the nature of income derived from supplying agricultural items. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision to reevaluate the claim concerning profits from dealing with members, directing the AO to consider the specific aspects raised by the assessee.In conclusion, the appeals by the assessee were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal providing detailed directions for the AO to reexamine the deduction claims in both AYs, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment based on legal interpretations and factual evidence.
TaxTMI 