TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 32,66,896/- claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) denied the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the only ground that the appellant deals with nominal and associate members. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant is registered as Co-operative Society under Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the said Act allows the appellant to admit nominal and associate members. 5. That the learned Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was also reproduced and it was held that by following these judicial pronouncements, entire disputed issue is restored back to AO for fresh decision with some directions. It was submitted that in the present case also, the order of CIT (A) should be set aside and the entire matter be restored back to AO for fresh decision with similar directions. 4. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). He submitted a copy of the tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s Atmashakthi Multipurpose Co - Operative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1220 & 1221/ Bang/2019 dated 18.10.2019 and placed reliance on this. He pointed out that as per Para No. 5 of this tribunal order, the tribunal noted the legal position that as per the Proviso to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) is applicable by giving a categorical finding as to which provision of the Karnataka Co Operative Societies Act, 1959 has been violated by the assessee in A. Y. 2015 - 16. Learned CIT (A) was also directed that if there is violation of the Karnataka Co Operative Societies Act, 1959 than the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P but if there is no such violation than the issue regarding eligibility for deduction u/s 80P should be decided on merit as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Thereafter, he pointed out that in Para 5.17 of the impugned order of CIT (A), a categorical finding is given by CIT (A) in the present case that no. of regular members in the present case is 1738 and the pres....