TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Kasat, at the outset, pointed out that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Punjab National Bank Employees Credit Society Ltd. (ITA No.3415 & 2935/Mum/2014) order dated 31/03/2016. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR, Shri Ganesh Bare. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of this order dated 31/03/2016 for ready reference and analysis:- "There are two appeals under consideration for the AY 2010-2011 and they are cross appeals. These two appeals are field against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 18.2.2014. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are inter- connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. ITA No.293S/M/2014 (By Revenue) 2. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 29.4.2014. In this appeal, Revenue raised objections on the applicability of the provisions of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding activities do not constitute banking activities as the same are transacted between the cooperative society and the members of the society. Since, no public is involved the definition of 'banking' does not cover such activities. As such, there is no Reserve Bank of India's approval for conducting such banking activities in this case. He also relied on the definition of ''banking'' and read out from the contents of section S of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 and the same reads as under:- Sec. 5(b) "banking" means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft, or otherwise; 7. From the above, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the members of the Credit Cooperative Society do not constitute "public" and there is no depositing, withdrawal by cheque or draft etc. After considering the said judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Quepem Urban Cooprative Credit Society (supra), we are of the opinion that decision of the CIT (AJ is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal dated 29/07/2015 for ready reference and analysis:- "This appeal filed by the Revenue on 03.07.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 30.04.2013 for the assessment year 2010-2011. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing to allow deduction u/s 80P to the assessee even though assessee carries on the banking business and other business in the name of a credit cooperative society. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) without considering insertion of section 80P(4) and sub clause (viia) to section 2(24) vide Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the facts of the assessee‟s case are not identical with any of the case laws relied upon by the AO especially decision of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Kekri Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd and Cochin ITAT in the case of Kerala State Coop. Agricultural Rural....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-members, and thus, was entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act." 6. Therefore, considering the above, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Rest of the grounds ie Ground no.2, 3 and 4 are argumentative in nature and therefore, they need no special adjudication. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as academic. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 3.2. During hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that for Assessment Year 2012-13, identically, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 25/04/2016, allowed the claim of the assessee. A copy of the order was also placed on record. We find that for Assessment Year 2012-13, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) A) placed reliance upon the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jafari Momin Vikash Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (supra) along with another decision from Hon'ble High Court in Quepem Urban Cooperative Society (supra) and also the decision from Ka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the decision rendered by the SMC Bench of Mumbai Tribunal, in M/s Jaoli Taluka Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit V/s ITO in ITA No.6627/Mum/2014 (AY- 2010- 11) dated 10.8.2015, wherein the Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda 2965/M/2014 and 3556/Mum/2014 Credit Co-operative Ltd. (2015) (230 Taxman 309) and also the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Ltd (2010) (229 CTR (SC) 209) held that the deduction u/s 80P cannot be rejected to a co-operative society. 5. On the contrary, the ld. DR placed strong reliance on the order o f AO. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, we notice that the issue raised before us stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court of Bombay rendered in the case of Quepem Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd (supra). Since the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue is in accordance with the binding decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order passed on this issue. 7. The appeal filed by the assessee ....