2020 (12) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :- (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in- (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members," 3. According to the AO, the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was available only to a co-operative society and since the Assessee is only a souharda sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and since under the said Act, Co-operative Societies are not being registered, the Assessee should not be allowed the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. According to the AO, Co-operative and Co-operative Societies are 2 different entities. If the co-operative wants to convert itself into a co-operative society, it has to be converted as per the amended provisions of Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act,1997 as amended by Act 13/2004. Similarly, und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Since all these new points have been raised during the course of hearing before us and according to us all these points goes to the root of the case, we are of the view that proper adjudication of the issues is required by the AO. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and resotore the matter to the AO to re-examine all these aspects by making necessary enquiry and investigation and also by passing a reasoned order in this regard. Since we have restored the matter to the AO, we find no justification to adjudicate the issue raised on merit. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored to the AO for adjudication of the impugned issue in terms indicated above." 6. Thus the issue whether a souharda registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 can be regarded as co-operative society entitled to benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and hence the tribunal remanded the issue for fresh consideration by the AO. There was therefore no view taken by the tribunal that Souharda's are not entitled to claim benefit of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 7. It was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xt and context of these provisions, one can safely conclude that all entities that are registered under the enactments relating to co-operative societies, regardless of their varying nomenclatures need to be treated as co-operative societies; (ii) in the State of Karnataka, there have been two statutes enacted by the State Legislature that relate to registration & regulation of co-operative societies viz., the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ie., Karnataka Act No.11 of 1959 and the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act,1997 ie., Karnataka Act No.17 of 2000; both these Acts are enacted pursuant to Article 246(3) r/w Entry 32, List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; there is no other Entry to which this Act is relatable; the Legislative Entries being only the fields of legislation need to be very broadly interpreted, is the settled position of constitutional jurisprudence vide UJAGAR PRINTS, ETC. vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1989 SC 516; Chapter X of 1997 Act containing sec.67 enacts important co-operative principles that animate and brood through almost all the provisions of this Act; (ii) After noticing the statement and objects and reasons for intro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is donned by them, so that inter alia they can own and possess the property; (f) the employment of the word "Sahakari" in the very title of the 1997 Act is also not sans any significance; 'Sahakaar' in Sanskrit is the equivalent of 'sahakaara' in Kannada which means 'co-operation'; as already mentioned above both the 1959 Act and the 1997 Act employ this terminology; the 1997 Act is woven with the principles of cooperation; sec.4 of this Act bars registration of an entity unless its main objects are to serve the interest of the members in the area of cooperation and its bye-laws provide for economic and social betterment of its members through self-help & mutual aid in accordance with the co- operative principles; this apart, even sub-section (2) of sec.4 is heavily loaded with co-operative substance. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a declaration is made to the effect that the entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 fit into the definition of "co-operative society" as enacted in sec.2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore subject to all just exceptions, petitioners are entitled ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 230 taxman 309 (Karn) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Totgar's Co-operative Sales Society (supra) and held that interest income in respect of temporary parking of own surplus funds not immediately required is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned DR relied on a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. 395 ITR 611 (Karn.). 14. We have carefully gone through the judgment relied by the learned DR. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the decision cited by the learned DR was that the Hon'ble Court was considering a case relating to Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011- 2012. In case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the very same Assessee, the Assessment years involved was AY 1991-92 to 1999-2000. The nature of interest income for all the AYs was identical. The bone of contention of the Assessee in AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 ....