Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-17 v. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-1014-80]

Citation 2019-LL-1014-80
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-17
Respondent Name Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/10/2019
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order dated 20 th May, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Regarding question It has not been shown to us that the respondent has in any manner breached Section 80P(2)(a) and of the Act. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Regarding question :- We find that the issue raised herein was a subject matter of consideration by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. wherein identical issues raised by the Revenue were not entertained. This as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, the for the reasons indicated in our order dated 20 th March, 2017, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.


Uday S. Jagtap 933-17-ITXA-92=.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Appellant v/s. M/s. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant Ms. Namrata Kasale for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 14 th OCTOBER, 2019 P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges order dated 20 th May, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Revenue urges following two questions of law for our consideration :- (a) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) and (d) of IT Act, 1961? 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 17:20:18 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 933-17-ITXA-92=.doc (b) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is right to allow relief to assessee by holding that assessee being Co-operative Credit Society is not Co-operative Bank hence entitled for deduction u/s 80P(4) of I.T. Act despite fact that assessee is carrying on banking business and has been categorized as Co-operative Bank / other Bank ? 3. Regarding question (a) (a) It has not been shown to us that respondent has in any manner breached Section 80P(2)(a) and (d) of Act. (b) Thus, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding question (b) :- (a) We find that issue raised herein was subject matter of consideration by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1682 of 2014, decided on 20th March, 2017) wherein identical issues raised by Revenue were not entertained. This as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (b) It is pertinent to note that impugned order of Tribunal dismissed Revenue s appeal before it by relying upon decision 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 17:20:18 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 933-17-ITXA-92=.doc of its co-ordinate bench in case of Kulswami Co-operative Society (ITA Nos. 3223/Mum/2011 for Assessment Year 2007-08 and ITA No.505/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09). (c) Thus, for reasons indicated in our order dated 20 th March, 2017, question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. appeal is dismissed. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 17:20:18 ::: Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-17 v. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd
Report Error