TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount disputed in other cases. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 247/Jodh/2023 is taken as a lead case. Based on the above arguments we have also seen that for these appeals grounds are similar, facts are similar, and arguments were similar and therefore, were heard together and are disposed by taking lead case facts, grounds, and arguments from the folder in ITA No. 247/Jodh/2023. 4. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 247/Jodh/2023 on the following grounds; "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the proceedings initiated for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act by the learned AO is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. That the Appellate Authority was wrong in holding the initiation of proceedings u/s 154 of The IT Act as proper particularly when the deduction claimed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the learned AO has passed order u/s 154 of the IT Act by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P (2)(d) of the IT Act. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 7. I have carefully examined the submission of the appellant as reproduced in the preceding paragraph and the facts emanating from the A.O's order, wherein various disallowances and additions have been made. 7.1 In the Ground No.1, 5 & 6 of the appeal are general in nature not requiring any adjudication. Ground No.2 is on the issue relating to regarding the treatment of interest income earned by the appellant. The AO has disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.80P by the appellant in respect of interest income earned from banks. At the outset it may be mentioned that this issue has now been finally settled as has been discussed in the succeeding paragraphs of this order. 7.1.1 The issue to be decided is with regard to the interest income earned on account of investments made with Banks, whether it is entitled to deduction eit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act was claimed on interest from the deposits made in a nationalized bank out of the amounts which was used by the assessee for providing credit facilities to its members. The Assessee claimed that the said interest amount is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities by the assessee and forms part of profits and gains of business. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after considering SC judgment in case of Totgars(supra) held that since the word income is qualified by the expression "attributable" to the business of Banking is used in Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, it has to receive a wider meaning and should be interpreted as covering receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of business. The Court held a Cooperative Society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Totgars (supra), was not applicable to deduction u/ 80P(2)(d) of the Act, because the said decision was rendered with regard to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 10. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. TOTAGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 395 ITR 0611 (Karn) took a different view and held that interest income earned on deposits whether with any other bank will be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u / s_{r} 80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon'ble Court followed decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon'ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I) Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd scope of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. (Paragraph 13 of the Judgment). 2. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business Income from such exemption/deduction category. The words used in Section 80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society". relation to any co The words "in relation to can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a cooperative Society from a Co-operative Bank. This exclusion by Section 80P(4) of the Act even though without any amendment in Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The only exception is that of a primary agricultural credit soc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it would not make a difference, whether the interest income is earned from investments/deposits made in a Scheduled Bank or in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present appeals, in view of the binding precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court." (Paragraph 19 of the Judgment) 12 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 389 ITR 0578 (Guj) did not agree with the view taken by the Kamataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra) that the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) is restricted to the sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members which was retained in many cases and invested in short term deposit/security and that the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and did not lay down any law. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society (supra) decided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y (supra), in case of a society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, income from investments made in banks does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However, section 80P(2)(d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from funds invested in cooperative societies. Therefore, to the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co- operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 14. The CIT was therefore justified in exercising his powers of revision u/s.263 of the Act and directing the AO to tax interest income in question as it is neither of the nature specified in Sec. 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 15. The argument of the le Lfor the see Assessee has been that the AO has applied his mind and allowed the deduction and therefore the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be exercised. On this argument, the learned DR pointed out that the juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative society clearly covered under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, the denial of said exemption is on wrong appreciation of facts and therefore, the appeal of the assessee having similar set of facts on various assessment years wherein even the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the said claim earlier year and in some of the cases action u/s 154 of the Act has been done and any other years action of section 147 has been initiated and thereby in all these appeals challenging the same issue of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Jodhpur Bench as well as Jaipur Benches of ITAT and therefore, the denial of exemption to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is required to be allowed. In support of the grounds so raised in these appeal the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following submission: Appellant is Co-Operative Society engaged in Consumer Co-Operative Store and registered under the Rajasthan Co-Operative Societies Act, 1953. * During the year certain interest was received from deposit with Co-Operative Bank, on which the deduction was originally allowed in 143(3) assessment und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment under s. 148-Further, the order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice-Reopening was not therefore sustainable * Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 7 NYPCTR 1267 (Guj) Reassessment-Full and true disclosure-Reason to believe-Not based on new fresh tangible material-Perusal of reasons to believe indicate that on verification of Annex. "F" of the Tax Audit Report and the notes thereto, it was found that the assessee had not quantified the amount of additional depreciation @10 per cent on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding year and had made passing remarks without substantiating its claim-Reopening the assessment has been based on the very annexure of the audit report which was available to the Revenue in the exercise that was carried out during the scrutiny assessment-Reason to believe therefore cannot be said to be based on any new of fresh tangible material and cannot therefore be used as a tool to reopen the assessment proceedings-Assessee has been claiming additional depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent on the eligible plant and machinery by virtue of the provisions of s. 32(1)(iia)- Assessment has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided there is " tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to s. 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words " reason to believe" but also inserted the word " opinion" in s. 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words " reason to believe", Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word " opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the AO. * DCIT vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. (2022) 36 NYPTTJ 319 (Chennai) Reassessment-Change of opinion-Absence of tangible material- Issue of adjustment of security premium by reduction of capital while computation under s. 115JB and on the other hand, the amount was taken in the Revenue account as transferred from securities premium account which was credited in the P&L a/c, so, there is no effect in the net profit already disclosed in tax audit report-During the assessment under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med u/s 80P(2)(d). The appellant had received interest from Udaipur Central Co-Operative Bank, The Rajasamand Urban Co- Operative Bank and Udaipur Mahila Urban Co-Operative Bank. Such interest received from other Co-Opperative Societies is exempt u/s 80P(20(d) of the Act. * The appellant had submitted the registration certificate of all the above Banks under the Rajasthan Co-Operative Societies Act during the assessment proceedings to show that the interest income was received from the cooperative society. * Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thorapadi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Limited & Ors. Vs. ITO in WP 11172 of 2023 in order dated 10.10.2023 had quashed proceedings u/s 148 under exactly similar facts and circumstances involving deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and held that such deduction is allowable and the relevant order of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced hereunder : "The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed off through this common order. 2. The present writ petitioners challenged the impugned notices issued under Section 148 A(b) for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as well. So taking into consideration of this aspect, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned notices, stating that any interest amount received from the investment made in a Co-operative Bank by a Co-operative Society, is not entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 5. In support of his contentions, he referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "The Totagars Cooperative Sale Society -Vs- Income Tax Officer, Karnataka" reported in [2010] 188 Taxman 282 SC. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment is pertaining to the interpretation and the deduction which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), where it was held, the Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction if any interest income is received from its own members by providing credit facilities. Therefore, even the said judgment is taken into consideration in the present case, the income was received by the Cooperative Society only and not from the Co-operative Bank, hence the petitioner is eligible for the deduction. 7. I have given due consideration for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her businesses or a Co-operative bank. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka", wherein the issue came up for consideration as to whether the interest income received by a Co-operative Bank from its members by way of providing the credit facilities to its members is eligible for deduction or not. Ultimately the Hon'ble Surpeme Court found that under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), the same is eligible for deduction. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable for in the present case as the eligibility of deduction of interest has to be decided under Section 80P(2)(d) and not under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The learned counsel has also relied upon other judgments which are not applicable for the present facts of the present case 12. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax Salem v. The Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd" in Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2015, wherein, apart from oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 864 (Asr) Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d)-Allowability-Interest earned from deposits in co-operative banks-Sec. 80P(2)(d) allows whole deduction of income by way of interest or dividend derived by a Co-operative Society from its investments with any other co-operative society-This provision does not make any distinction with regard to the source of investment because this section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by co-operative society from in its investment with a co-operative society-Therefore, the investment of the assessee in cooperative bank is eligible investment under s. 80P(2)(d)-Interest of the said investment related to Co-operative Society- Hence, assessee is eligible for deduction under s. 80P(2)(a)(i)-Principal CIT vs. Totgars Coop Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Kar), Tumukur Merchants Souhard Credit Coop. Ltd. vs. ITO (2015) 55 taxmann.com 447 (Kar), CIT vs. Gulshan Mercantile Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 8 (All), Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Memises Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 6547/Mum/2017, dt. 25th April, 2018) and Tirupati Campus Ph. II Co- Op. Housing Society Maryadi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral credit alone-Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) must be contrasted with s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) to (v), which expressly speak of agriculture-Once the cooperative society is providing credit facilities to its members, the fact that it is also providing credit facilities to non-members does not disentitle the society from availing of the deduction-However, since profits and gains from credit facilities given to non-members cannot be said to be attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to its members, such amount cannot be deducted-Limited object of s. 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks i.e., which lend money to members of the public-Sec. 80P being a benevolent provision must be read liberally and reasonably, and if there is ambiguity, in favour of the assessee- Further, s. 80P(4) is to be read as a proviso, which specifically excludes co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business i.e. engaged in lending money to members of the public, which have a licence in this behalf from the RBI-Therefore, once s. 80P(4) is not applicable to the facts of the case, all the assessees in the present case are entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue-Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest of Rs. 4,90,919 on account of interest received from N Central Co-operative Bank without adjusting interest paid to the bank. * CIT v/s UP Co-operative Sugar Factories (2013) 219 TAXMAN 0033 (Allahabad) Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d)-Computation-Gross income or net income-Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) is allowable to assessee cooperative society only on net income by way of interest received from cooperative societies/banks after deducting expenditure debited to P&L a/c relatable to earning of such income-CIT vs. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd. (1995) 127 CTR (Raj) 401 : (1995) 215 ITR 448 (Raj) and CIT vs. Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 35 (All) followed. * Jansevak Co operative society ltd v/s ITO order dated 26.05.2023 reported in (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 739 (Mumbai). In this case the Hon'ble Tribunal has also explained about the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal CIT and Anr. vs. Totgar's Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd (2017) 292 ITR 74 (KAR) and various other cases wherefrom your honorably please observe that the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respect to the income earned on the deposits made with other co-operative banks. * ITO vs. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sang Ltd. (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 1453 (Jodh) Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d)-Interest income-Interest received from regional rural bank and Central cooperative bank-CBDT Circular No. 61201 F. No. 273(3) 144/2009-IT(A-1), dt. 20th Sept., 2010, has clarified that regional rural banks (RRB) are not eligible for deduction under s. 80P from asst. yr. 2007-08 onwards-Circular No. 319, dt. 11th Jan., 1982 which says that an RRB is a co-operative society stands withdrawn w.e.f. asst. yr. 2007-08- Further, s. 80P has been amended and a new sub-s. (4) has been inserted to provide that the provisions of the said section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative society for agricultural land and rural development bank-In the present case, the assessee is a co-operative society whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are other co-operative societies and not members of the public-Thus, the interest received by the assessee from Baroda Raj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....outside the records and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154. CIT v Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)]. * Mistake means commission that is not designed and which is obvious and something which has no two opinions or which is debatable. CIT V Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar (1996) 220 ITR 100 (GAU) * Master Construction Private Limited v. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1047 (SC) In this case , The Hon'ble Supreme Court in context of Rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (similar to section 154 of the ITA) had held that arithmetical mistake was a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake was a mistake in typing or writing. Further, an error apparent on the face of record does not include an error which depends for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. * MEPCO Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC) : (2009) 227 CTR (SC) 313 Rectification-Debatable issue or debatable-Issue of power subsidy granted by the Government-In each case, one has to examine the nature of subsidy and this exercise cannot be taken under s. 154-As the CIT has already in its order under s. 264 had taken the view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 219 CTR (SC) 105 : (2008) 13 DTR (SC) 1 : (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), the subsidy given by the Government was for repaying loans. Therefore, in each case, one has to examine the nature of subsidy. This exercise cannot be undertaken under s. 154 of the Act. There is one more reason why s. 154 in the present case was not invokable by the Department. Originally, the Commissioner of Income-tax, while passing orders under s. 264 of the Act on 30th April, 1997, had taken the view that the subsidy in question was a capital receipt not taxable under the Act. After the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra), the Commissioner of Income-tax has taken the view that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt. Therefore, in our view, the present case is a classic illustration of change of opinion. In Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT & Ors. (1989) 75 CTR (Ker) 115 : (1988) 174 ITR 579 (Ker), the facts were as follows : the assessee claimed interest on advance tax paid by it in excess but beyond the due dates. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the claim of the assessee. Followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee cases is separate and distinct. There is no strait jacket principle of distinguishing a capital receipt from a revenue receipt. It depends upon the circumstances of each case. As stated above, in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Etc. (supra), this Court has observed that the production incentive scheme is different from the scheme giving subsidy for setting up industries in backward areas. In the circumstances, the present case is an example of change of opinion. Therefore, the Department has erred in invoking s. 154 of the Act. * CIT vs. Keshri Metal (P) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC) Rectification-Mistake apparent from record from record- Computation of book profits under s. 115J-Current depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation allowed for purposes of computing book profits under s. 115J-No apparent error shown by Department- Rectification not called for. Held: We have heard learned counsel. We do not agree that the question raises a pure question of fact ; to that extent, the High Court was in error. But it was not in error in coming to the conclusion that there was no occasion for rectification. Under the provisions of s. 154 there has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Expansion of head office, which was considered to be of enduring nature and therefore the expenditure was treated as capital expenditure not allowable u/s 36(iii) of the Act. * The loans were used for the purpose for the purpose of the working capital and were deposited in the overdraft account of the appellant which reduced the amount of overdraft. The utilization of the funds was for the working capital and therefore the interest paid on such loans was an allowable revenue expenditure. Your kind attention is invited towards page 4 of CIT(A) order in AY 2016-17 in which it was clearly stated that the funds were not used in acquisition of any capital assets but was deposited in the overdraft account. Similar facts are there in AY 2017-18 which is evident from page 2 and page 4 of order of CIT(A). * With regards to disallowance of interest please refer to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi IT Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of IT in case of BPTD Ltd. Source (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 1465( Del) * Devi Construction vs. DCIT Pune Bench (2020) 207 TTJ (Pune) 130 Sec. 36(1)(iii) provides for deduction of 'the amount of the interest paid in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Assessee filed it return of income on 25.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs 51,80,877/- after claiming a deduction of Rs 36,46,906/- and making disallowance of Rs. 18,95,50,72/-. The assessee filed filed a rectification application to the CPC for allowing of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 2,26,01,978/- as claimed in the return but the same was rejected. Thereafter the assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the IT Act to the ld. AO but the same was also rejected by him and the same was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) but again the notice of 154 of the Act and the same was not considered by the ld. CIT(A) on the same issue. Thus, it is not imperative repeat the facts but it is notable that the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee and disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest derived by the Co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society. The issue of allowability of deduction of interest received from other co-operative society (though the said co-operative society is doing banking activities ) is allowable u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is already decided by the Jodhpur bench in the case of in the case ITO Vs. Bhilwara Zila Du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revenue's contention is unsustainable. Section 22 in uncertain terms categorically deems Regional Rural Banks (of which description Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Banks answer to) as Cooperative Societies for the purposes of Income Tax Act. In the absence of non-obstante clause, the mere fact that a restrictive condition was imposed in relation to a Cooperative Bank for regulating the benefit of Section 80P, does not in any manner, alter the pre-existing situation. By virtue of Section 22, Regional Rural Banks continue to be deemed Cooperative Societies and all the contingent consequences that flow from it. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." Taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances of the case, we observed that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly passed the order as the similar written submission filed by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and the identical issue which is in favour of the assessee's own case of the Coordinate Bench in case by the ITAT, Jodhpur's order dated 31.10.2018 in ITA No. 437/Jodh/2017, A.Y. 2014-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties), they were considered to be not eligible for deduction under section 80P when the section was originally introduced However, as section 22 of the Regional Rural Bank Act provides that a RRB shall be deemed to be cooperative society for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in order to make such banks eligible for deduction under section 80P. CBDT issued a beneficial Circular No. 319 dated 11-1- 1982, which stated that for the purpose of section 80P, a Regional Rural Bank shall be deemed to be a cooperative society. 10 ITA Nos. 163/Jodh/2019 ACIT vs. M/s Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 3. Section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 1-4-2007 introducing sub-section (4), which laid down specifically that the provisions of section 80P will not apply to any cooperative bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Accordingly, deduction under section 80P was no more available to any Regional Rural Bank from assessment year 2007-08 onwards. An OM dated 25-8-2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the Board clarifying that Regional Rural Banks would not be eligible for ded....