DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHEEMUNIPATNAM MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 414/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 August 2026AY 2022-2311 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society, and Section 80P(4) only excludes cooperative banks licensed to do banking business from claiming deduction under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, declared income including interest from deposits with a District Central Cooperative Bank. The Assessing Officer added this interest income, disallowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following previous ITAT decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(d),Section 80P(4),Section 2(19)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM DB BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. :

This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →