Dismissed

The Citizen Coop. Soc. Ltd., Hyd v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025ITTA/553/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Co-operative society's tax appeal against disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Supreme Court had already decided the identical substantial question against the same assessee for another assessment year; the High Court accordingly decided the question in favour of the revenue and rejected the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; substantial question decided in favour of the revenue; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

The Citizen Coop. Soc. Ltd., Hyd Vs Addl… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^348e ]

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE THIRTEENTHDAYOF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP'SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE SUDDALACHALAPATHIRAO}

¶6

INCOME TAX^{TRIBU NAL APPEA L NO: 553oF 2012}

¶7

lncome Tax^{Tribunal Appeal Under Section 26!4 of the lncomeTax Act'1961} uguinri^{itre brder dated oz-'5i-zolz passedin ITA No"1004/Hvd/2011for the} -on tn" file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Assessment^{Year 2008-2009} Hyderabad^{Bench'B', HYderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Citizen Co-operativer^Soc 'bi ierv Ltd. 11-7-194,^{HUDA Colony,Saroor} Naoar.Hvderabad^{- 500035ReP'} its vianaging^{Director G. Ranqa Raos/o'} -5'piiirn-ri" Wirisome^{Apartments,D No'11-} sudo, nao, Aqed⁶³ Yrs^{R/o' G} 8-99/1 06,^{NaratimhaPuriColonY} ,^{Saroornagar,HYderabad}

¶10

...APPellant

¶11

AND

¶12

Addl. Commissioner^{of lncome Tax, Range - 9' Hyderabad}

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for^{the Appellant:SRI CH PUSHYAM KIRAN}

¶15

Counsel for^{the Respondent:K SUDHAKAR REDDY'Sr Standing CounselFOR} INCOME^{TAX DEPARTMENT}

¶16

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. CHALAPATHI RAO

¶19

I.T.T.A.No.553 OF 2012

¶20

ORDER, ficr Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

¶21

Heard Mr. Ch. Pushyam Kiran, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Nfu. K. Sudhakar Reddy, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

¶22

The substantial question of law that raised in the instant appeal is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon,ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Assessing Offrcer in disallowing the deduction to the appellant claimed under Section 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, t96t?

¶23

\ \

¶24

Today', when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Bench that in respect of the same substantial question of law for another Assessment year i.e., 2OOg10, the matter liad travelled up till the Hon,ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society

¶25

¶26

Limited, v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabadl, has decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

¶27

4, In view of the fact that the same substantial question of law in respect of the same assessee having already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society

¶28

Limited (supra), the present appeal also stands decided in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid^judgment

¶29

Accordingly, the instant appeal is rejected and the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

'1zott19^{scc 364}

//TRUE^COPY//

SD .S.S.C.S.M.^SARMA OINT REGISTRAR

¶35

ECTION OFFICER