TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submit as follows in addition to such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing 1) The impugned order of both the below authorities are not speaking orders. The impugned orders have been passed mechanically, without application of mind and not sustainable in law. 2) It is submitted that only the Co-operative banks other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank have lost exemption available under Sec. Sec. 80 P (2) by virtue of the new provision Sec. 80 P (4) brought by the Finance Act, 2006 from Assessment Year 2007-08. The Appellant being a primary credit co-operative society is not in anyway disentitled from claiming the benefit of exemption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the decision in Totagars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. supra and also as per the ruling of ITAT, Bengaluru in ITA No. 2752 & 2753/ Bang! 2017 in Honnali Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. 1lonnali vs. I.T.O. Ward - 2, Shivamogga. 4) Both the below authorities have erred in not accepting the returned income of the Appellant since its business income from providing of credit facilities to its members and interest on investments earned together form part of its Business income and the provision contained in section 80 P (2) (a) (i) warrants deduction of 'whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities'. The Appellant being a credit cooperative society, its entire ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from claiming the benefit u/s. 80P of the Act since the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable. 6) The appellant submits, the definition of a 'Member' is not given in the Income Tax Act and therefore the definition given in the State enactment will prevail. The definition of 'Member' given under Sec. 2 (f) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 a1so includes a Nominal and an Associate Member. The Bye-laws of the appellant also provide for transacting with nominal and associate members. Therefore, the transactions of the appellant fall well within the frame work of law. Further, Income Tax Act has not drawn any distinction between regular member and nominal or associate member. Therefore, the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fillment of 'concept of mutuality' for allowing deduction under Sec. 80 P of the Act to co-operative societies. The judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Hyderabad' supra has been misread, misunderstood and misinterpreted by both the below authorities for the purpose of taxing the appellant on the ground that the concept of mutuality is missing in appellant society. The action of both the below authorities amounted to carving out a separate exclusion, which will not fall in their domain, to deprive the legitimate benefit of exemption available to the appellant u/s. 80P of the Act. 9) The Appellant disputes the disallowance of various provisions of Rs. 5,70,164/- made in the Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the IT Act was disallowed by the AO and it is confirmed by CIT(A). He submitted that the main basis of the decision of the authorities below is by following the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society as reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karn). He also submitted that other judgment on which reliance has been placed by the authorities below is the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT as reported in 397 ITR 1. He submitted that none of the authorities below has examined and compared the facts of the present case with the facts in the case of T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k on which interest income was earned was out of the liability of the assessee society and not out of its own funds and for this reason, in that case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue against the assessee. But in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), it was found that the money deposited in bank by assessee was out of its own funds and not out of liability and therefore, the issue in that case was decided in favour of the assessee. The bench proposed that since the facts in the present case are not readily available on record and there is no finding of authorities below on this factual aspect regardin....