ITO 22 3 1, PAREL vs. SHIV SAGAR BUSINESS PREMISES CO.OP. SOC. LTD., WORLI S.O
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts, stating that Section 80P(4) restricts claims by co-operative banks, not by recipient societies. The Tribunal also found the claim under Section 80A(5) to be without merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on deposits with co-operative banks. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, citing Section 80P(4) and Section 80A(5). The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, holding that co-operative banks are co-operative societies for this purpose and Section 80P(4) does not bar the recipient society's claim.
What were the issues?
Whether interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and whether Section 80P(4) restricts such claims in the hands of the recipient society.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE BEENA PILLAI & HON’BLE JAGADISH
आदेश / ORDER
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 04/11/2025 for the A.Y. 2015- 16, on the following grounds of appeal:- 1 “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT A has erred in allowing deduction under section 80P 2 d of the Income-tax Act 1961 in respect of interest income earned from deposits with co operative banks, ignoring the provisions of section 80P 4 of the Act 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT A has failed to appreciate that a co operative bank engaged in commercial banking activities cannot be treated as a co- operative society for the purposes of section 80P 2 d of the Act 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT A has erred in holding that section 80P4 restricts only the eligibility of co operative banks to claim deduction and does not affect the allowability of deduction in the hands of the recipient society contrary to the legislative intent behind the insertion of section 80P 4 4) Whether on facts and in law the Ld.CITA erred in allowing deduction under section 80P despite the assessee having failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139 1 in contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 80A 5 of the Act 5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA has erred in relying on certain Tribunal decisions while ignoring contrary High Court judgments including Pr CIT vs Totagars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd and Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd which hold that interest earned from deposits with cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction under section 80P2d 6) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CITA has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute interest income solely on the basis of bank certificates disregarding the findings of understatement of interest income and the principle of taxation on accrual basis 7) The order of the LdCITA is erroneous in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside to the extent the relief has been granted to the assessee 8) The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend OR withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in maintenance of commercial premises and deriving income from 2 maintenance charges and interest earned on deposits with co- operative banks. The assessment was framed by the Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B vide order dated 20/02/2024 determining total income at Rs. 1,96,66,582/- as against returned income of Nil. The Ld.AO observed that the assessee had understated interest income and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 1,27,67,204/-. Further, deduction claimed u/s 80P amounting to Rs. 68,99,378/- was disallowed on the ground that interest earned from co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and also invoking provisions of section 80A(5).
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A).
2.1. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions and judicial precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks. It was observed that co-operative banks are co- operative societies for the purposes of section 80P(2)(d), and section 80P(4) does not bar such claim in the hands of the recipient society. The Ld.CIT(A) further directed the Ld.AO to recompute interest income based on bank certificates and grant consequential relief.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Before us, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.AO and submitted that co-operative banks engaged in commercial banking activities cannot be equated with co-operative societies for the purpose of section 80P(2)(d). It was contended that section 80P(4) 3 excludes such entities and consequently, interest derived therefrom is not eligible for deduction. It was further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring binding judicial precedents and in directing recomputation of income contrary to the findings of the Ld.AO.
3.1. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2021–22. It was submitted that co-operative banks are species of co-operative societies and, therefore, interest derived from such entities falls within the ambit of section 80P(2)(d). It was further submitted that section 80P(4) restricts only the claim of deduction by co-operative banks and does not affect the allowability of deduction in the hands of the assessee. With regard to section 80A(5), it was submitted that the return having been filed in response to notice u/s 148 and accepted in assessment proceedings, the deduction cannot be denied on technical grounds.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.
The issue for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks.
4.1. We note that the identical issue has been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2021–22 in ITA No. 3104/Mum/2025 vide order dated 31/07/2025, wherein it has been categorically held that interest 4 earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Coordinate Bench has clearly held that co-operative banks continue to fall within the ambit of co-operative societies for the purpose of section 80P(2)(d), and the restriction under section 80P(4) operates only against co-operative banks claiming deduction and not against a co-operative society receiving such income. The relevant observations of the Tribunal reads as under:-
“Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, we find that the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said decision pertained to the applicability of section 80P(2)(a)(i) and has no bearing on the issue relating to the eligibility of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income received from co- operative banks. 3. As regards the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), it is pertinent to note that the same has been distinguished and explained by several High Courts and Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of Premium Tower Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., wherein the Tribunal, after an exhaustive analysis of the judicial precedents, held as under:- 4. “4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the only issue is with respect of allowability of deduction of Rs.13,85,628/- claimed u/s. 80 P(2)(d) on account of interest received by the assessee from various cooperative banks. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the provision of Section 80 P(2)(d) and Section 80 P(2)(a)(i) only extend the benefit of deduction towards income earned by cooperative society engaged in the business of providing banking facility to its members and does not extend to the interest received from the investments made in the cooperative banks. The ld. AO has invoked Section 80P (4) holding that since investments have been made in the cooperative banks and therefore, deduction is to be denied. Here, we are not dealing with, whether assessee can be treated as cooperative bank or not. Here the issue is, assessee had made investment in the cooperative banks, whether interest earned from such investment falls in the category of interest earned from cooperative society or not so as to get benefit u/s 80 P(2)(d)? 5. Section 80P provides that in case of assessee being a cooperative society, the gross total income which includes any income referred to sub-section 2 shall be deducted in accordance with subject to provision of this section. Sub-section 2 of section 80P Clause (a) states that, “in the case of cooperative society engaged in cooperative business of banking and providing credit facilities to 5 its members or ………, the whole of amount of profit and gains of the business attributable to anyone or more or such activity.” Clause (d) of Sub- section 2 of Section 80P reads as under:-
(d) In respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; 6. Sub section 4 of section 80P carves out of exception that the provision of this section will not apply in relation to any cooperative bank. Further explanation provides that the definition of cooperative bank and primary cooperative bank. The said provision reads as under:-
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co- operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.
Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section-
(a) co-operative bank" and "primary agricultural credit society" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) (b) "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank" means a society having its area of operation confined to a taluk and the principal object of which is to provide for long-term credit for agricultural and rural development activities.] 7. Thus, assessee being a cooperative society cannot be reckoned as cooperative bank carrying out banking business. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom), after analyzing the relevant provision of Section 80P including Sub-section (4) had categorically held that cooperative banks are to be treated as cooperative society. In so far as deduction of interest earned on investment made in cooperative bank, Clause (d) of section 80P(2) provides that any income by way of interest on dividend derived from cooperative societies from its investment with any other cooperative societies, the whole of such income is deductable u/s 80P. The cooperative bank has been defined in part 5 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949. Section 56(ccv) provides that primary cooperative bank means cooperative societies other than a primary agriculture society. This view had come up for the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Kar.) dated 5th Jan. 2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:-
Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Authority being the disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same exact assessee as the present one, namely, The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal Nos.1622 to 1629/2010 decided by the Apex Court on 08.02.2010 or not?
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not following the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 2010, wherein the Apex Court has to be held that the words used in Section 80P "the whole of the amount of profits and gains 6 of business" emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society and as such interest earned on funds which are not required for business purposes falls under the category of "other income" taxable under the Income Tax Act?
According to the learned counsel, the present appeal should be admitted on these two substantial questions of law.
However, the contention being taken by the learned counsel is untenable. For the issue that was before the ITAT, was a limited one, namely whether for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co- operative Bank should be considered as a Co-operative Society or not? For, if a Co- operative Bank is considered to be a Co-operative Society, then any interest earned by the Co-operative Society from a Co- operative Bank would necessarily be deductable under Section 80P(1) of the Act.
The issue whether a Co-operative Bank is considered to be a Co-operative Society is no longer res integra. For the said issue has been decided by the ITAT itself in different cases. Moreover the word "Co- operative Society" are the words of a large extent, and denotes a genus, whereas the word "Co- operative Bank" is a word of limited extent, which merely demarcates and identifies a particular species of the genus Co- operative Societies. Co- Operative Society can be of different nature, and can be involved in different activities; the Co-operative Society Bank is merely a variety of the Co- operative Societies. Thus the Co- operative Bank which is a species of the genus would necessarily be covered by the word "Co-operative Society".
Furthermore, even according to Section 56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary Co- Operative Society bank as the meaning of Co- Operative Society. Therefore, a Co-operative Society Bank would be included in the words 'Co-operative Society'.
Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co-operative Society Bank. Therefore, according to Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, the said amount of interest earned from a Co- operative Society Bank would be deductable from the gross income of the Co- operative Society in order to assess its total income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the said deduction to the assessee respondent.
The learned counsel has relied on the case of The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, (supra). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. Thus, neither of the two substantial questions of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue even arise in the present case.
This view has further been reiterated by the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Percoorkada Service Co. Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141 (Kerala) dated 01.11.2021, wherein one of the question before the Hon’ble High Court was, whether the interest income earned from deposits with the banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Societies Ltd. 322 ITR 323, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that interest income earned from district cooperative bank or state cooperative bank, come within the ambit of section 80P (2)(d), therefore the income constitutes income from other sources and it is eligible for deduction covered u/s 80P(2)(d). Otherwise section 80P(2)(d) specifies any income by way of interest or dividend which is otherwise taxable under the head income from other sources, deduction is allowable if the same is derived from investment made with any other cooperative societies.
In contravention, section 80P (2)(a) provides income from carrying out various activities which is in the nature of business. Irrespective whether the interest income derived from activities as provided in section 80P (2)(a) which is otherwise the business income for which deduction is allowable, if there is any interest income which is earned on deposits or investment made with cooperative societies, the same must fall in the category activity or the business, but still is eligible for deduction under the specific provision of section 80P(2)(d). Thus, the interest derived by the assessee from cooperative bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) because as noted above, cooperative are also cooperative societies for this purpose. This has been held so by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and latest judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court.
Lastly, in so far as judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (395 ITR 611), which has been referred and relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A), the Hon’ble High Court has held against and observed that income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or cooperative bank. Therefore, section 80P(2)(d) would not apply on the facts of that case. However, as noted above in one of the judgment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held the same issue in favour of the assessee.
Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Kar.) dated 5th Jan. 2017 and judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Percoorkada Service Co. Bank Ltd. (supra), we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction of interest income earned from cooperative bank.
Thus, claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) is allowed to the assessee”
In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by coordinate benches of the Tribunal and other High Courts which have consistently held that interest income received by a co- operative society from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), we are unable to sustain the disallowance made under section 143(1). Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and allow the assessee 8 the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from fixed deposits placed with co- operative banks.”
4.2. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid binding precedent, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Ld.CIT(A).
As regards the contention of the Revenue invoking section 80A(5) of the Act, the same also devoid of merit. The return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 and the claim has been duly examined in assessment proceedings. The deduction, being otherwise allowable on merits, cannot be denied on such technical plea.
With regard to recomputation of interest income, the direction of the Ld.CIT(A) to verify bank certificates and determine correct income is in consonance with law and does not call for interference.
Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue.
In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 30/04/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.
Copy to:
ITO 22 3 1, ROOM NO. 307, 3RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, 1 LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012., MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA SHIV SAGAR BUSINESS PREMISES CO.OP. SOC. LTD., D BLOCK,SHIV SAGAR ESTATE, BASEMENT, DR ANNIE BESANT 2 ROAD MUMBAI, WORLI S.O, MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA, INDIA,400018., MUMBAI-400018, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7044/MUM/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7043/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026