Income tax Officer, Ward-2, Vijayapur V. The Adil amanat Co.op Credit Society Ltd, Vijayapur

ITA 1660/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 166021114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.1660/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, VIJAYAPUR ..APPELLANT V. THE ADIL AMANAT CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, ALANKAR TALKIES ROAD, VIJAYAPUR ..RESPONDENT PAN : AAAAT6687R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JCIT HEARD ON : 03.08.2015 PRONOUNCED ON :07.08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, AGAINST AN ORD ER DT.17.10.2014 OF CIT (A), BELGAUM, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 02. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT CIT (A) ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT IN SHORT), RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KA RNATAKA IN CIT V. SRI BILURU ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 GURUBASAVA PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT [ITA NO.5006/2013, DT.05.02.2014]. 03. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FELL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A COOPERATIV E BANK GIVEN IN CLAUSE (CCV) OF SECTION 5 OF THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1949. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80P STOOD ATTRACTED. TH E SAID SUB-SECTION SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P WOULD NOT APPLY TO A COOPERATIVE BANK. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IT HAD TRANSACTIONS ONLY WITH ITS MEMBERS AND NOT PUBLIC, THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED. ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WAS GOOD ENOUG H TO BE CONSIDERED AS 'SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC'. FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSACTING IN BANKING BUSINESS AND ITS PAID-UP SHARE CAPITAL EXCEEDED RS.1 LAKH. ITS BYE LAWS DID NOT HAVE A CLA USE PERMITTING ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AS A MEMBER. HE THER EFORE HELD IT TO BE A COOPERATIVE BANK. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(I) OF THE ACT. 04. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE PLACED IN DEPOSITS WERE HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS DEPOSITS FROM ME MBERS. WHEN THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE NEED OF THE FUNDS FOR LOAN DISBURSEMEN TS, INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 FUNDS IDLE, ASSESSEE HAD PLACED IT WITH THE BANKS A S DEPOSITS. AS PER ASSESSEE, IT WAS BOUND TO PAY INTEREST TO THE MEMBERS. SUBMISSI ON OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS, CLOSURE OF SUCH DEPOSITS AND REPAYMENTS WERE REGULAR AND ROUTINE FEATURE OF ITS BUSINESS. AS PER ASSESSEE, UNLESS THE FUNDS WHICH WERE REMAINING WITH IT WERE PLACED IN BANKS, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR IT TO PAY THE INTEREST D UE TO ITS MEMBERS. 05. CIT (A) WAS IMPRESSED BY THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CIT V. SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, BAGALKOT (SUPRA), HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE A CT. 06. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT SOURCE OF THE INTEREST WAS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. ACCORDING TO HIM, ONLY THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE S EEN AND NOT THE REMOTE SOURCE. HONBLE APEX COURT WAS CLEAR IN THIS ASPEC T IN THE DECISION OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., (SUPRA). HERE IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE, ONLY A VERY SMALL AMOUNT WAS LENT BY IT TO ITS MEMBERS. IT WA S NOT SIMILAR TO A SOCIETY WHICH WAS CARRYING ON CREDIT BUSINESS. THEREFORE A CCORDING TO HIM, CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, ON SUCH INT EREST WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 07. PER CONTRA, LD. AR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF CIT (A), SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD., V. ITO (ITA NO.30 7 OF 2014, DT 28.10.2014), AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., (SUPRA), HAD HELD TH AT THE SAID JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT WAS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FACTS IN THAT CASE. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD NOT LAID DOWN ANY LA W FOR GENERAL APPLICATION. AS PER LD. AR, JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFO RESAID CASE HAD UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT FUNDS WHICH WERE NOT IMMEDI ATELY REQUIRED BY A CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR LENDING MONEY TO THE MEMBER S, IF DEPOSITED IN BANK, EARNING INTEREST THEREFROM, SUCH INTEREST WAS ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUC TION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEES CASE DIFFE RED FROM THAT OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD (SUPRA), ONLY BY REASON OF MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY IT. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WAS ONE OF THE AVOWED OBJ ECTS OF THE SOCIETY. 08. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE LD. DR THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECT OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS. AO HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS TH E PRIMARY OBJECT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED. NODOUBT, OUT OF SUBSTAN TIAL SUM RECEIVED AS DEPOSITS FROM THE MEMBERS, ONLY SMALL PORTION WERE GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AS LOANS TO ITS MEMBERS. MAJOR PART OF THE FUNDS WERE PARKE D IN FDS. HOWEVER, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO GIVE I NTEREST TO ITS MEMBERS ON THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THEM. THEREFORE, WHEN THERE WERE NO TAKERS FOR THE MONEY, WHICH ASSESSEE AS A PART OF ITS OBJECTS WANT ED TO LEND, THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHOICE FOR ASSESSEE, IN ORDER NOT TO KEEP THE FUNDS IDLE, WAS TO PLACE IT IN BANKS ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 FOR EARNING INTEREST. AFTER THE JUDGMENT IN SRI B ILURU GURUBASAVA PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT (SUPRA), HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAD IN THE CASE OF CIT V. TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD (ITA.307 OF 2014, DT.28.10.2014), HELD AS UNDER IN RELATION TO A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING AS ITS OBJECT, BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BUSINES S CREDITS TO ITS MEMBERS, AT PARAS 3 TO 10 OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.28.10.2014 : '4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED, THE INTEREST ACCRUED IN A SUM OF RS.1,77 ,305/- IS FROM THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A NATIONALIZED BAN K OUT OF THE AMOUNTS WHICH WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND THEREFORE THE SAID INTEREST AMOUNT IS A TTRIBUTABLE TO THE CREDIT FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEEAND FORMS PART OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE HE SUBMITS THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE SAID BENEFIT IN TERMS OF SUB-SEC.(2) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE R ELIED ON SEVERAL JUDGMENTS AND POINTED OUT THAT THE APEX COURT IN TH E AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS NOT LAID DOWN ANY LAW. 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE STRO NGLY RELIED ON THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND SUBMITTED, THE CA SE IS COVERED BY THAT JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT AND NO CASE FOR INTERFER ENCE IS MADE OUT. 6. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH EMERGES IS, THE SUM OF RS. 1,77,305/- REPRESE NTS THE INTEREST EARNED FROM SHORT-TERM DEPOSITS AND FROM SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING CRE DIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IT IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY OTHER BUSINESS. THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITI ES TO ITS MEMBERS IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS FOR A SHORT DURATION WHICH H AS EARNED INTEREST. THEREFORE, WHETHER THIS INTEREST IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, IS THE QUESTION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTICE THE RELEVANT PROVISION O F LAW IE., SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I): DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETIES: 80P (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 6 (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN D SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN S UB- SECTION (2) , IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL B E THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: (A) IN THE CASE OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN (I) )CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDI NG CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (II) XXX (III) XXX (IV) XXX (V) XXX (VI) XXX (VII) XXX THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES. 7. THE WORD ATTRIBUTABLE USED IN THE SAID SECTION IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSI DER THE MEANING OF THE WORD ATTRIBUTABLE AS SUPPOSED TO DERIVE FR OM ITS USE IN VARIOUS OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN THE CASE OF CAMB AY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT-LL REPORTED IN ITR VOL. 113 (1978) PAGE 842 AT PAGE 93 AS UNDER: AS REGARDS THE ASPECT EMERGING FROM THE EXPRESSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO OCCURRING IN THE PHRASE PROFITS AND GAINS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SPECIFIED INDUS TRY HERE GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY ON WHICH THE LEARNED SOLICITOR-GENERAL RELIED, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO O BSERVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DELIBERATELY USED THE EXPRESSION A TTRIBUTABLE TO AND NOT THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. I T CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE EXPRESSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO IS CERTAINLY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. HAD THE EXPRESS ION DERIVED FROM BEEN USED, IT COULD HAVE WITH SOME F ORCE BEEN CONTENDED THAT A BALANCING CHARGE ARISING FROM THE SALE OF OLD MACHINERY AND BUILDINGS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PROFI TS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF G ENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. I N THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED SOLI CITOR GENERAL, IT ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 7 HAS USED THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM, AS, FOR INS TANCE, IN SECTION 80J. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE EXPRESSION OF WIDER IMP ORT, NAMELY, ATTRIBUTABLE TO, HAS BEEN USED, THE LEGISLATURE I NTENDED TO COVER RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. 8. THEREFORE, THE WORD ATTRIBUTABLE TO IS CERTAIN LY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. WHENEVER THE LE GISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING, THEY HAVE USED THE EX PRESSION DERIVED FROM. THE EXPRESSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO BEING OF WI DER IMPORT, THE SAID EXPRESSION IS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE WHENEVER THEY INTENDED TO GATHER RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS. A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS 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 INT EREST INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINE SS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. THE SOCIETY IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY SEPARATE BUSINESS FOR EARNING SUCH INTEREST INCOME. THE INCOME SO DERIVED IS THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITY OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 9. IN THIS CONTEXT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. , ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED, THE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH A CAS E WHERE THE SOCIETY, APART FROM PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS, WAS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM MARKE TING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WAS RETAINED IN MANY CASES. THE SAID RETAINED AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO ITS MEMBERS FROM WHOM P RODUCE WAS BOUGHT, WAS INVESTED IN A SHORT-TERM DEPOSIT/SECURI TY. SUCH AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY WAS A LIABILITY AND IT WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. T HEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, SUCH INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE EITHER TO THE ACTIVITY M ENTIONED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 80 P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, THE A PEX COURT HELD THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME INDICATED ABOVE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT. FURTHER THEY MAD E IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE CONFINING THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THE FACTS OF THA T CASE. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT LAYING DOWN ANY LAW . ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 8 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS INVES TED IN BANKS TO EARN INTEREST WAS NOT AN AMOUNT DUE TO ANY MEMBERS. IT W AS NOT THE LIABILITY. IT WAS NOT SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THEIR ACCOUNT. IN FACT THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF PROFITS AND GAINS, WAS NOT IMME DIATELY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LENDING MONEY TO THE MEMBERS, AS T HERE WERE NO TAKERS. THEREFORE THEY HAD DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN A BANK SO AS TO EARN INTEREST. THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THEREFORE IT IS LIABLE TO B E DEDUCTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P(1) OF THE ACT. IN FACT SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX III, HYDERABAD VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPORTED IN (2011) 200 TAXMA N 220/12 IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID A MOUNT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDER. APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' 09. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGE MENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REPRODUCED ABOVE, WHERE I N AT PARA 10, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE MONEY MEANT FOR LENDING, REMAINING SURPLUS, THERE BEING NO TAKERS, IF DEPOSITED IN BANKS FOR EARNING INTEREST, SUCH INTEREST INCOME WOULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. NATURAL COROLLARY IS THAT SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED UNLESS THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IS RECOGNISED BY RBI AS A COOPE RATIVE BANK AS PER THE RULES MADE UNDER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT. WE, THEREFOR E, HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ). ITA.1660/BANG/2014 PAGE - 9 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH DAY OF JU LY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEO RGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR