REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10245 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 20044 OF 2015) CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -9 (1), HYDERABAD .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) appellant herein, after losing in all fora below, has knocked doors of this Court by means of present appeal seeking benefit of Section 80P of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). Assessing Officer held that deduction in respect of Signature Not Verified income of co-operative societies under Section 80P of Act is not Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI admissible to appellant as benefit of deduction, as contemplated Date: 2017.08.09 14:29:51 IST Reason: under said provision is, inter alia, admissible to those co-operative 2 societies which carry on business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. On contrary, appellant society was carrying on banking business for public at large and for all practical purposes it was acting like co-operative bank governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and its operation was not confined to its members but outsiders as well. 3) It may be noted at this stage itself that Section 80P of Act provides for certain deduction in respect of incomes of co-operative societies. co-operative society is defined by Section 2(19) of Act. Where gross total income of such co-operative societies includes any income referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 80P, sums specified in sub-section (2) are allowed as deduction in accordance with and subject to provisions of said Section, while computing total income of assessee. profit exempted is net profit included in total income and not gross profit of business. Sub-section (2) enlists those sums which are allowed as deductions. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) includes seven kinds of co-operative societies which are entitled to this benefit, and in respect of co-operative societies engaged in activities mentioned in those seven classes, whole of amount of profits and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such activities is exempted from income by allowing said income as deduction. We are concerned with sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of 3 sub-section (2) of Section 80P which enlists co-operative society engaged in carrying on business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. For sake of better understanding, we reproduce below aforesaid portion of Section 80P: 80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where, in case of assesee being co-operative society, gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing total income of assessee. (2) sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be following, namely:- (a) in case of co-operative society engaged in - (i) carrying on business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or xx xx xx whole of amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities: xx xx xx 4) Section 80P was amended by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 01, 2007 and sub-section (4) was inserted thereto. This sub-section (4) reads as under: (4) provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. Explanation. For purposes of this sub-section, - (a) co-operative bank and primary agricultural 4 credit society shall have meanings respectively assigned to them in Part V of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (b) primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank means society having its area of operation confined to taluk and principal object of which is to provide for long-term credit for agricultural and rural development activities. 5) As would be seen from facts hereafter, appellant is co-operative society. However, it has been denied benefit of Section 80P on ground that it is co-operative society of nature covered by sub-section (4) of Section 80P and, therefore, becomes disentitled to get benefit. question, therefore, is as to whether appellant is barred from claiming deduction in view of Section 80P(4) of Act. In order to ascertain answer to this question, relevant facts are enumerated hereinbelow: (i) assessee was established on May 31, 1997 initially as Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society having been registered, under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 with Registration No. AMC/RR/DCO/9714 by Registrar of Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies, Ranga Reddy. As operations of assessee over years had increased manifold and as its operations were spread over States of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka, assessee got registered under Multi State 5 Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 in terms of certificate dated July 26, 2005 issued by Office of Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. (ii) assessee is being assessed to income tax since its inception. It has been claiming exemption under Section 80P of Act which was being allowed by Income Tax Authorities. As per assessee, in course of its operations, members deposit cash into their accounts with society and they withdraw same. It is claimed that earlier, none of Income Tax Authorities had pointed out that acceptance of deposits from its members in cash and withdrawal thereof by them in cash would violate provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T of Act. Sections 269SS and 269T of Act relate to mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits and their repayment respectively. (iii) assessee as Co-operative Society and assessee under PAN No. AAAAT3952F had filed return of income before Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(I), Hyderabad for Assessment Year 2009-10, for year ending March 31, 2009 on September 30, 2009 declaring NIL income. In return filed for Assessment Year 2009-10, year ending with March 31, 2009, assessee claimed sum of Rs.4,26,37,081/- as deduction under Section 80P of Act. Return filed by assessee was 6 taken up for scrutiny under CASS (Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for Scrutiny) and notice under Section 143(2) of Act was issued. In response thereto, books of account were produced by assessee society and information called for was submitted. Assessing Officer had arrived at Rs.19,57,32,920/- as net amount of tax payable by assessee in terms of his order dated December 19, 2011 by working out as hereunder: Income Returned by assesee : Rs. Nil (After claiming deduction u/s 80P) Add: Disallowance u/s 68 as : Rs.38,53,72,794/- discussed in para no.2, 2.1 and 2.2 above Add: Disallowance of deduction : Rs.4,26,37,817/- claimed u/s 80P Total assessed income : Rs.42,80,09,880/- Tax there on : (as per computation Form enclosed). Tax payable : Rs.19,57,32,920/- 6) It may be pointed out that in appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}, order of Assessing Officer making disallowance under Section 68 of Act was reversed and that addition was deleted. Therefore, we are not concerned with that aspect of mater which has attained finality. 7) Insofar as disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of Act is concerned, CIT(A) rejected claim for deduction thereby upholding order of Assessing Officer. While doing so, CIT(A) 7 followed order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in case of appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. CIT(A) quoted following discussion from said order of ITAT: 22. For Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09, we have to consider amendment brought out to section with effect from 1.4.2007 by Finance Act, 2006 whereby section 80P(4) was inserted. amendment clearly barred all cooperative banks other than primary agricultural credit society or primary cooperative agricultural and rural development banks from claiming exemption under section. primary activity of society is to provide banking facilities to its members. Society is dealing like bank while accepting deposits from its members. This issue was examined by ITAT in assessee s own case while deleting penalty u/s. 27ID and 27IE. ITAT held as under: If carrying on baking business is not approved by RBI or assessee is not having requisite license to carry out banking business, authorities could have taken action against society or stop society activity. Once assessee is allowed to carry on banking business, then assessee is bound by relevant provisions of Banking Regulations Act. bank for all its banking activities is strictly governed by Banking Regulations Act, 1949. 23. Society is carrying on banking business and for all practical purpose it acts like co-op bank. ITAT observed that society is governed by Banking Regulations Act. Therefore, Society being co-op bank providing banking facilities to members is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(i)(a) after introduction of sub-section (4) to Section 80P. 24. In view of above, we are of opinion that society is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, we are of opinion that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) for Assessment Year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and allowed ground raised by Revenue and dismiss ground taken by 8 assessee on this issue. 5.2 facts in present appeal being identical, respectfully following decision of ITAT in assessee s own case for preceding years, appeal of assessee is dismissed on issue of deduction u/s. 80P. 8) Further appeal to ITAT met same fate as ITAT also referred to its aforesaid order and dismissed appeal of appellant. Undeterred, appellant approached High Court in form of appeal under Section 260A of Act. This appeal has been dismissed by High Court with observations that there is no illegality or infirmity in order passed by ITAT. 9) Referring to provisions of Section 80P of Act, Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant, made passionate plea to effect that entire purport and objective to enact said provision was to encourage and promote growth of co-operative sector in economic life of country in pursuance of declared policy of Government. This is so recognised by various judgments of this Court firmly laying down rule that provision for direction, exemption or relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of assessee and it should be so construed as to effectuate object of legislature and not to defeat it. He referred to objects for which assessee society has been established and submitted that principal object of society is to promote interest of all its members to attain 9 their social and economic betterment through self help and mutual aid in accordance with co-operative principles and keeping in view same assessee society can engage in certain specified forms of business stipulated in objective clause of society. purpose, therefore, was to promote interest of its members and, therefore, it cannot be said that primary object of assessee is transaction of banking business. 10) learned senior counsel drew attention of Court to Section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which defines banking business as under: (b) "banking" means accepting, for purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. 11) Predicated on aforesaid definition, he submitted that banking business means accepting for purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from public repayable on demand or otherwise which is withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. According to him, assessee was not accepting any money from public, except its members. Therefore, it was totally wrong on part of authorities below to come to conclusion that assessee was doing banking business as stipulated in Banking Regulation Act. It was also argued that in any case assessee was not authorised and 10 competent to carry on any banking business without possessing licence from Reserve Bank of India. He, thus, sought to draw distinction between co-operative bank and co-operative society in following manner: CO-OPERATIVE BANK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Nature of 1. As defined in Section 1. As per bye laws of business 6 of Banking Regulation cooperative society. Act. 2. Society is bound by 2. Banks are bound to rules issued by Reserve follow rules, Bank of India and regulations and regulations as specified by directions (RBI), if any applicable. Inspection RBI has power to Registrar has power to inspect accounts and inspect accounts and overall functioning of overall functioning of the bank. bank. Part V Part V of Banking Part V of Banking Regulation Act is Regulation Act is not applicable to applicable to cooperative cooperative banks. societies. Use of word bank , word bank , banker , words banker , banking can banking cannot be used be used by by cooperative society. cooperative bank. It was also pointed out that even Central Board of Direct Taxes CBDT vide circular No. 133/2007 dated 9.5.2007 had clarified that Section 80P(4) of Act provides that deduction shall not allowable to any Co-operative Bank other than Agricultural Credit Society or Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Submission was that since assessee does not fall within meaning of Co-operative Bank as defined in Part-V of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 80P(4) will not, therefore, apply to assessee. 11 12) Continuing with aforesaid line of argument, Mr. Shekhar further submitted that courts below ought to have appreciated that purpose of exemption under Section 80P is to provide employment of as much capital as possible for financing and extending scope of fundings etc. true test for applying deduction under Section 80P of Act is whether income earned is attributable to utilisation of circulating capital of cooperative society engaged in activity of business of banking. Once assessee had earned income from loans advanced to various members, income so related to banking activities is liable for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act. He submitted that this interpretation is supported by various decisions of this Court. For this purpose, he referred to decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Bangalore Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd.1 wherein it was held that interest on Government securities and dividends earned by Co-operative Society engaged in banking business is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of Act, though said income was not earned from credit facility provided to its members. Also, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Limited 2 this Court held that Co-operative Society carrying business of banking would be entitled for deduction under Section 80P of Act. Plea of appellant was 1 (1998) 6 SCC 129 2 (2012) 13 SCC 788 12 that if intention of legislature was not to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to cooperative societies carrying on business of providing credit facilities to its members, said provision would have been deleted from Statute. According to learned senior counsel, new proviso to Section 80P(4) which was brought onto Statute Book is applicable only to cooperative banks and not to credit cooperative societies. intention of legislature in bringing cooperative banks into taxation structure was mainly to bring them on par with commercial banks. 13) Taking aid of principle of mutuality, it was submitted that assessee is mutual concern. Income derived by it from its operations is distributed among members. members are entitled to participate in surplus, thereby creating identity. Facilities are provided only to members of society, who provide funds to it and their identity with funds and their participation in surplus arising from said fund is unmistakably found and thus principles of mutuality will apply. In order to apply principle of mutuality, there must be complete identity between contributors and participators and requirement of law bring that contributors of common fund and participators in surplus must be identical body. What is essential is that members of assessee as class must be able to participate in surplus. It is immaterial whether surplus is paid back to members or is put to reserve with 13 society for development and for providing better amenities to members. There is complete identity between contributors and participators of assessee. 14) On basis of aforesaid arguments, Mr. Shekhar pleaded that appellant be held entitled to benefit of Section 80P of Act. 15) In reply, Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for Revenue, submitted that findings arrived at by authorities below to effect that activity/business of appellant, in essence, was that of co-operative bank was based on material on record and needed no interference. In this behalf he not only relied upon findings of Tribunal as per discussion contained therein, but also submitted that these are findings of fact. Assessing Officer scrutinised bye-laws of appellants and in particular those bye-laws which deal with liability of membership etc. as well as provisions of Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (MACSA) under which appellant is registered. Assessing Officer found that Act does not accept person to be member of more than one co-operative for same services. Moreover, Section 19 of MACSA does not accept every co-operative to be panacea for all problems facing entire population in area and leaves it to members to decide how big they wish to grow and how much they can handle. After 14 analysing these provisions, following discussion ensued in order passed by Assessing Officer: As per above provisions governing conduct of assessee, assessee cannot admit nominal members and deal with them. main activities of assessee are in violation of above provisions, as seen under: (i) As per information furnished, it was found that assessee caters to two distinct categories of people. (ii) first category is that of resident members or ordinary members. (iii) second category is that of nominal members, who make deposits with assessee for purpose of obtaining loans etc. (iv) This category of persons is neither members nor nominal/associate members. (v) As noticed, assessee accepts deposits mostly from second category these deposits are mostly kept in FDs. (vi) With banks to earn maximum returns, portion of these deposits are utilized to advance gold loans etc. to members of first category. (vii) It is noticed that assessee has fixed deposits of Rs.541699504.39 of Rs. As on 31.3.2007. Therefore, fixed deposits in banks are mostly out of funds received as deposits from second category of persons referred above. (viii) As class, depositors and borrowers are quite distinct and activity is finance business and cannot be termed as cooperative activity. (ix) assessee is also engaged in activity of granting loans to general public etc. which has nothing to do with cooperation amongst members. It is plain business and any willing buyer can utilize services of assessee. 15 (x) As understood, assesse has not obtained any approval from Registrar of Societies either to accept deposits from nominal members (who are actually non-members as provisions of law referred above) as well as for conducting business of sale of stamps etc. (xi) Therefore, both in form and substance, activity is in violation of Cooperative Societies Act and Cooperative Society Rules. (xii) Apart from above, cooperative credit society is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on income from investment of surplus funds as per decision of IT at Hyderabad Bench in ITA No. 1141/Hyd/2007 in case of SBI Staff Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. 16) He submitted that there was clear finding of Assessing Officer, which was consistently approved by higher authorities as well, that provisions of Section 80P(2)(i)(a) were grossly violated as appellant Society was found not dealing with its members only but also with general public as well. On that basis, further submission of Mr. Radhakrishnan was that principle of mutuality was missing in this case, which aspect was also discussed in detail by Assessing Officer. He, thus, contended that in view of aforesaid findings, no case for interference was made out by appellant. 17) We have considered submissions of counsel for parties with reference to record of this case. 18) We may mention at outset that there cannot be any dispute to 16 proposition that Section 80P of Act is benevolent provision which is enacted by Parliament in order to encourage and promote growth of co-operative sector in economic life of country. It was done pursuant to declared policy of Government. Therefore, such provision has to be read liberally, reasonably and in favour of assessee (See Bajaj Tempo Limited, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay 3). It is also trite that such provision has to be construed as to effectuate object of Legislature and not to defeat it (See Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Ors. 4). Therefore, it hardly needs to be emphasised that all those co-operative societies which fall within purview of Section 80P of Act are entitled to deduction in respect of any income referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) gives exemption of whole of amount of profits and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such activities which are mentioned in sub-section (2). 19) Since we are concerned here with sub-section (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), it recognises two kinds of co-operative societies, namely: (i) those carrying on business of banking and; (ii) those providing credit facilities to its members. 3 (1992) 3 SCC 78 4 (1983) 4 SCC 392 17 20) In case of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax5, this Court, while dealing with classes of societies covered by Section 80P of Act, held as follows: 6. classes of societies covered by Section 80-P of Act are as follows: (a) Engaged in business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members; xx xx xx 7. We may notice that provision is introduced with view to encouraging and promoting growth of cooperative sector in economic life of country and in pursuance of declared policy of Government. correct way of reading different heads of exemption enumerated in section would be to treat each as separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever question arises as to whether any particular category of income of cooperative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether income fell within any of several heads of exemption. If it fell within any one head of exemption, it would be free from tax notwithstanding that conditions of another head of exemption are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of exemption... 21) In case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd.6, while dealing with identical issue, High Court of Punjab and Haryana held as follows: 8. provisions of section 80P were introduced with view 5 (1998) 5 SCC 48 6 (2008) 300 ITR 24 (Punjab & Haryana H.C.) 18 to encouraging and promoting growth of co-operative sector in economic life of country and in pursuance of declared policy of Government. different heads of exemption enumerated in section are separate and distinct heads of exemption and are to be treated as such. Whenever question arises as to whether any particular category of income of co-operative society is exempt from tax, then it has to be seen whether such income fell within any of several heads of exemption. If it fell within any one head of exemption,.... It means that co-operative society engaged in carrying on business of banking and co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members will be entitled for exemption under this sub-clause. carrying on business of banking by cooperative society or providing credit facilities to its members are two different types of activities which are covered under this sub-clause. xx xx xx 13. So, in our view, if income of society is falling within any one head of exemption, it has to be exempted from tax notwithstanding that condition of other heads of exemption are not satisfied. reading of provisions of section 80P of Act would indicate manner in which exemption under said provisions is sought to be extended. Whenever Legislature wanted to restrict exemption to primary co-operative society, it was so made clear as is evident from clause (f) with reference to milk co-operative society that primary society engaged in supplying milk is entitled to such exemption while denying same to federal milk co-operative society. 22) aforesaid judgment of High Court correctly analyses provisions of Section 80P of Act and it is in tune with judgment of this Court in Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (supra). 23) With insertion of sub-section (4) by Finance Act, 2006, which is in nature of proviso to aforesaid provision, it is made 19 clear that such deduction shall not be admissible to co-operative bank. However, if it is primary agriculture credit society or primary co-operative agriculture and rural development bank, deduction would still be provided. Thus, co-operative banks are now specifically excluded from ambit of Section 80P of Act. 24) Undoubtedly, if one has to go by aforesaid definition of co-operative bank , appellant does not get covered thereby. It is also matter of common knowledge that in order to do business of co-operative bank, it is imperative to have licence from Reserve Bank of India, which appellant does not possess. Not only this, as noticed above, Reserve Bank of India has itself clarified that business of appellant does not amount to that of co-operative bank. appellant, therefore, would not come within mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 80P. 25) So far so good. However, it is significant to point out that main reason for disentitling appellant from getting deduction provided under Section 80P of Act is not sub-section (4) thereof. What has been noticed by Assessing Officer, after discussing in detail activities of appellant, is that activities of appellant are in violations of provisions of MACSA under which it is formed. It is pointed out by Assessing Officer that assessee is catering to two 20 distinct categories of people. first category is that of resident members or ordinary members. There may not be any difficulty as far as this category is concerned. However, assessee had carved out another category of nominal members . These are those members who are making deposits with assessee for purpose of obtaining loans, etc. and, in fact, they are not members in real sense. Most of business of appellant was with this second category of persons who have been giving deposits which are kept in Fixed Deposits with motive to earn maximum returns. portion of these deposits is utilised to advance gold loans, etc. to members of first category. It is found, as matter of fact, that he depositors and borrowers are quiet distinct. In reality, such activity of appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as co-operative society. It is also found that appellant is engaged in activity of granting loans to general public as well. All this is done without any approval from Registrar of Societies. With indulgence in such kind of activity by appellant, it is remarked by Assessing Officer that activity of appellant is in violation of Co-operative Societies Act. Moreover, it is co-operative credit society which is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act. 26) It is in this background, specific finding is also rendered that principle of mutuality is missing in instant case. Though there is 21 detailed discussion in this behalf in order of Assessing Officer, our purpose would be served by taking note of following portion of discussion: As various courts have observed that following three conditions must exist before activity could be brought under concept of mutuality; that no person can earn from him; that there profit motivation; and that there is no sharing of profit. It is noticed that fund invested with bank which are not member of association welfare fund, and interest has been earned on such investment for example, ING Mutual Fund [as said by MD vide his statement dated 20.12.2010]. [Though bank formed third party vis-a-vis assessee entitled between contributor and recipient is lost in such case. other ingredients of mutuality are also found to be missing as discussed in further paragraphs]. In present case both parties to transaction are contributors towards surplus, however, there are no participators in surpluses. There is no common consent of whatsoever for participators as their identity is not established. Hence, assessee fails to satisfy test of mutuality at time of making payments number in referred as members may not be member of society as such AOP body by society is not covered by concept of mutuality at all. 27) These are findings of fact which have remained unshaken till stage of High Court. Once we keep aforesaid aspects in mind, conclusion is obvious, namely, appellant cannot be treated as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members. We are afraid such society cannot claim benefit of Section 80P of Act. 22 28) This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 8, 2017. 23 ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII-A (FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20044/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-07-2013 in ITTA No. 292/2013 passed by High Court Of A.P. At Hyderabad) CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondent(s) CIRCLE-9(1),HYDERABAD Date : 08-08-2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced judgment of Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan. Leave granted. appeal is dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on file) Citizen Co-operative Society Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad