The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1), Belgaum.., Belgaum V. The Mercantile Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Belagavi

ITA 264/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7609 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIRAJ Y V LD
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT R PORWAL
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI SINGLE MEMBER CASE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 64 & 2 65 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR S: 2011 12, 201 2 1 3 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) BELGAUM 2 ND FLOOR, F.K. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OPPORTUNITY. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELGAUM V. THE MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., KADOLKAR GALLI BELGAVI PAN NO: AAAAT 5212 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHARAT R. PORWAL CA . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAVIRAJ Y.V . LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 /02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 6 /02/2017 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 . THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) BELAGAVI IN APPEAL NO S ITA NO. 119 & 250 /BGM/2013 14 DATED 15.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 12 AND 2012 - 13 RESPECTIVELY. SHRI RAVIRAJ REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI BHARAT R. PORWAL , CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . 2 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDE S THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE ASSESS EE S OLD CASE VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 100111/2014 DATED 21.09.201 5 HAS HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . I HAVE CONSIDE RED THE SUBMISSION. PERUSAL OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ORDER IN THE ASSESSEE OWN CASE REFERRED (SUPRA) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HONBLE HIGH COURT ITA.NO.2 64 & 265 /PAN/2016 MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., 2 HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT , COULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSE SSEE ON THE FOOTING THAT , THOUGH THE RESP ONDENT WAS SAID TO BE A CO - OPERATI VE SOCIETY , IT WAS IN FACT CO - OPERATIVE BANK , WITHIN THE MEANING AS ASSIGNED TO SUCH BANK UNDER PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION S ACT HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE ASSESSEE OWN CASE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 4 . IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 1 6 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 AT GOA. SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. VSSGB / - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A), 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 9