THE WOODLAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

ITA 2545/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2025AY 2012-201310 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) disallowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was not sustainable for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Tribunal reasoned that the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(v), which allow disallowance of deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A for delayed filing, were introduced with effect from 01.04.2018. Since the assessment year in question is 2012-13, this provision, with its extended scope, was not applicable. The Tribunal also referred to its own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2021-22, which clarified that a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not an 'incorrect claim' as it is not subject to statutory limits or percentages. The Tribunal further held on merits that co-operative banks are co-operative societies, and income earned by the assessee society from such banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as Section 80P(4) is not attracted to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the adjustment made by the CPC were set aside. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Woodland Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring a total income of ₹8,900. The society claimed a deduction of ₹3,77,131 under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from co-operative banks. The return was processed under Section 143(1) by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, which denied the deduction. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the CPC's adjustment, relying on a Tribunal decision for AY 2021-22. The CIT(A) noted the return was filed beyond the due date of 31.08.2012. The assessee is now appealing this order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) is permissible, considering the return was filed beyond the due date under Section 139(1) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Whether the CPC was justified in making an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) by treating the deduction claim as an 'incorrect claim'. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the adjustment made by the CPC was outside the scope of Section 143(1). They relied on the ITAT's decision in their own case for AY 2021-22, which held that disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A is permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(v) only if the return is filed beyond the due date. They also contended that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not an 'incorrect claim' as it does not have statutory limits. Furthermore, they argued that Section 80AC, as amended from 01.04.2018, restricting deductions for delayed filing, was not applicable to AY 2012-13. They also asserted that income from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and that Section 80P(4) is not attracted as the assessee is not a co-operative bank. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through the Ld. Sr. DR, did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but the CIT(A)'s order, which the Tribunal is reviewing, upheld the CPC's disallowance based on the late filing of the return and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 139(1),Section 80AC,Section 80P(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) -1, Kolkata [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, Honorable CIT- A ought to have held that adjustment made to total income by Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore was outside the scope of provisions of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, Honorable CIT- A ought to have allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P

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.

Create a free accountSign in

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 →