Corporate Law : Learn about the characteristics, types, and tax implications of cooperative societies in India, including deductions under Section...
Income Tax : Explore Circular 13/2023 on Income Tax condoning delays for returns claiming 80P deduction from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23. Understa...
Income Tax : TDS on Cash Withdrawals - Section 194N of Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 194N provides that every banking company, cooperative bank...
Income Tax : Understand the tax implications of interest on securities and income from house property for co-operative societies. Learn about S...
Income Tax : Section 80P: Deduction in respect of Income of Co-operative Societies In case of all co-operative societies, except co-operative b...
Income Tax : The anomalous position may be rectified by making suitable amendment in section 2(19) defining a Co-operative Society, by includin...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned from scheduled and co-operative banks was attributable to the society's business of providing credi...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied merely because a co-operative society has nominal or associa...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act const...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were complete...
Income Tax : CBDT issues Circular No. 14/2024 allowing condonation of delay in filing tax returns for AY 2023-24 under Section 80P, benefiting ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 13/2023-Income Tax: The government allows condonation of delay for filing returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80...
Income Tax : Circular No. 6/2010-Income Tax 2.As Regional Rural banks (RRB) are basically corporate entities (and not cooperative societies, t...
The case involved reopening of assessment on deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as time-barred, leaving intact the High Court ruling that reassessment was invalid on a settled issue.
The court held that reopening of assessment was invalid since the deduction issue was already settled in favour of the assessee. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based on an issue covered by binding precedent.
The court held that delay in filing returns can bar deduction under Section 80P. It directed the taxpayer to seek condonation under Section 119(2)(b). The ruling emphasizes compliance with statutory timelines.
The Tribunal examined whether loans for non-agricultural purposes disqualify a co-operative society from deduction under Section 80P. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that such loans do not bar deduction. The ruling clarifies that credit facilities to members need not be limited to agricultural purposes.
The ruling holds that deposits made from surplus business funds are part of operational activity. Interest earned on such deposits is business income and not income from other sources. Therefore, Section 80P benefit was granted.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
ITAT remanded the case as authorities failed to determine whether the assessee was a society, trust, or other entity. The eligibility for deduction was not properly examined. The ruling highlights the need for factual verification before denying tax benefits.
The issue was whether interest on FDRs qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal held that such income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. The key takeaway is that interest from cooperative institutions can qualify for exemption.
The court held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be granted where no return of income is filed. The key takeaway is that claiming deduction in a valid return is mandatory.
The petitioner’s claim that delay was caused by a tax consultant was rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was not perverse and required no interference.
