The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-17 v. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0109-42]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0109-42 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-17 |
| Respondent Name | Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 09/01/2020 |
| Assessment Year | 2009-10 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | prejudicial to the interest of revenue • co-operative society • co-operative bank • credit society • erroneous |
| Bot Summary: | The Appellant - Revenue has framed following questions as substantial questions of law :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was right in law in relying upon its order for earlier assessment year of 2010-11 to 2 31. 263 of the Act is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, because the order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; without appreciating the fact that the said appellate order for A.Y. 2010-11 was not accepted by the Department and appeal u/s. 260A of the Act was preferred against the said order vide Lodging No. ITXAL 2372017 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the order u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, because the order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; without appreciating the fact that in akin circumstances on the issue of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i), the Hon ble Apex Court has granted SLP to the Department in the cases of Pr. CIT vs. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative Credit, as reported in 73 taxmann.com 400(SC) and CIT vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamitha Bagalkot, as reported in 62 taxmann.com 216 Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Hon ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the order u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, because the order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue; without appreciating the fact that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., 229 CTR 209, has decided the very issue in favour of Revenue and furthermore, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society, as reported in 63 taxmann.com 300; has granted SLP to the Department on the said issue 3 31. The Revenue urges the following two questions of law for our consideration :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) and of the IT Act, 1961 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right to allow the relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee being Co-operative Credit Society is not a Co-operative Bank hence entitled for deduction u/s 80P(4) of the I.T. Act despite the fact that the assessee is carrying on the banking business and has been categorized as Co-operative Bank / other Bank 3. |