PUNJAB STATE COOP. MILK PRODUCER'S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded by its own prior decision in the case of the assessee, The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another [2011] 336 ITR 495 (P&H). In that judgment, the Court had held that under Section 14A of the Act, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning income which does not form part of total income under the Act shall not be an allowable expenditure. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act only after deducting the expenditure attributable to the earning of such income. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producer's Federation Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated August 7, 2007. This order was for Assessment Year 2003-04 and allowed the revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had previously allowed the assessee's claim. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,25,64,824/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income derived from member cooperative societies. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) had allowed it, leading to the revenue's appeal to the ITAT, which then ruled in favor of the revenue.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT's order allowing the revenue's appeal was legally sustainable. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income derived from member cooperative societies, amounting to Rs. 1,25,64,824/-, limited to the income out of total income of Rs. 7,77,35,632/-, after deducting expenses. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that expenses could be determined/attributed and deducted for computing interest income for Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, especially when not identifiable and part of common accounts. 4. Whether the ITAT's direction to deduct expenses attributable to earning interest income for Section 80P(2)(d) was legally sustainable, being based on presumptions. 5. Whether the ITAT's holding that Section 14A provisions were applicable to deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) was legally sustainable, given that Section 14A was amended to apply from Assessment Year 2007-08, while the current assessment year is 2003-04. Assessee's contentions (implied through the questions): The assessee likely argued that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) should be allowed in full without deduction of expenses, and that Section 14A was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Revenue's contentions (implied through the ITAT's decision): The revenue likely argued that expenses attributable to earning the interest income should be deducted before allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and that Section 14A was applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.8.2012 The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producer's Federation Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA. PRESENT: Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “B”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) in ITA No. 342/Chandi/2007, for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming the following substantial question of law:- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders (Annexure P-1) and (Annexure P-2) are legally sustainable? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is -2- right in law in allowing deduction under section 80P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest income derived by the appellant being a cooperative society from member cooperative societies amounting to Rs.1,25,64,824/- being limited to the income out of total income of Rs.7,77,35,632/- after deducting any expenses? iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that while computing the interest income derived from another cooperative societies for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) the expenses can be determined/attributed and deducted more so when these are not identifiable and are part and parcel of common accounts? iv) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT order directing the deduction of expenses attributable to the earning of interest income for the purpose of determining deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is legally sustainable, the same being based on mere presumptions and surmises? v) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the ITAT holding that the provision of section 14A are applicable to the deductions u/s 80P(2)(d) are legally sustainable in law, more particularly when the provision for determination of such expenses has been made by the Finance Act, -3- 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 i.e. for the assessment year 2007-08 and the present being assessment year 2003-04?
Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income on 1.12.2003 for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2003- 04 declaring nil income after claiming deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) of the Act amounting to ` 1,25,64,824/-. After issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure P-2) disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act at ` 1,25,64,824/-. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide order dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal. Feeling dissatisfied, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) allowed the appeal of the revenue. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appeal was admitted on 23.9.2008 and was ordered to be heard along with ITA No. 530 of 2006. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly accepted that the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of the assessee in The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and -4- another [2011] 336 ITR 495 (P&H), wherein it has been held that under Section 14A of the Act, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning income which does not form part of total income under the Act shall not be an allowable expenditure. The assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act after deducting the expenditure attributable to the earning of such income.
In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 31, 2012 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) gbs JUDGE
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 →- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026