STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 156/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 November 2021AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest income from FDRs with a nationalized bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, which considered the Revenue's reliance on the Totgars' case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative credit society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from FDRs with a nationalized bank. The lower authorities denied this deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income derived from FDRs with a nationalized bank by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri Shanthi Kumar (AR)

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad’s order dt.8.12.2017 passed in case No.0366/2016-17/ITO, Ward 5(3)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/17-18 in Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action declining 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction of Rs.75,02,196; there is hardly any dispute between the parties that the same represents interest income derived from FDRs with nationalised bank.

3.

There is further no quarrel between the parties that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision (2017) Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 371 (A.P) has very much considered the Revenue’s argument placing reliance on Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 (SC) that such an interest income is not business income and decided it in favour of the assessee. We therefore find no merit in Revenue’s arguments supporting the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in violation of hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision to this effect. The assessee succeeds in its sole substantive grievance therefore. No other argument has been pressed before us. 4. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Nov., 2021.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →