1. Income Tax Officer Vs. Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, I.T.A. No. 197 (MDS.) of 2013, Date of Order: 11.02.2014, ITAT - Chennai

Relief u/s 80P cannot be denied to Society extending credit facilities to members only.

From the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 80P and the Explanation to section 80P, it is evident that the benefit of section 80P is not available to co-operative banks whereas the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies are entitled for the same. For the purpose of sub-section (4), 'co-operative bank' and 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' shall have the meanings assigned to them under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

We find that the issue whether credit co-operative societies are same as co-operative banks has been dealt in detail by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Commercial Transport Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. The sub-section (4) to section 80P is applicable only to co-operative banks and not to credit co-operative societies. The decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Commercial Transport Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) has subsequently been followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Kasipalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) and Yeswanthpur Credit Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra). The assessee has also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court after taking into consideration the CBDT Circular No.133/07 has held that sub-section (4) section 80P will not apply to assessee which is not a co-operative bank.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Parle Biscuits (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No. 9010 (MUM.) of 2010, Date of Order: 11.04.2014, ITAT - Mumbai

Due to delayed share allotment share application money from related party couldn’t be held as a loan transaction.

The contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the clear transactions involving payment of share application money cannot be treated as international transactions of loans given by the assessee company to its AE merely because there was a delay in allotment of shares. It is observed that this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is duly supported by the latest decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. v. Addl. CIT wherein a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee.

(Please click here for judgment)