PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(2)(5), MUMBAI

On the order p Addl/J 2. On the f Commis acceptin deducti Co-oper deducti 2. Briefly stated fa operative housing soc The assessee is hav charges etc. from it deposits maintained consideration, the as declaring total incom u/s 80P(2)(d) of the A income filed by the a notices under the Ac The assessee was spe 80P(2)(d) of the opportunities from A compliance on the pa that the interest inco Bank and therefore it the Act. Accordingly passed on 03.12.201 Palm Court facts and circumstances of the case and i passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-t JCIT (A) is bad in law. facts and circumstances of the case and in la ssioner of Income-tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A) e ng the contention of the appellant that it is ion u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 rative Society and as per law the same is ava ion. acts of the case are that the as ciety providing various services ving income by way of subs s members and interest on sa d with various banks. For t ssessee filed return of income me at Rs.10,91,950/- after clai Act amounting to Rs.18,52,375/ assessee was selected for scrutin ct were issued and served upo ecifically asked to justify deduct Act. Despite providing mor August, 2018 to November, 2019 art of the assessee. The Assessin ome was earned from fixed dep t was not entitled for deduction y he made addition in the as 9. t M Premises Co Operative Society Ltd. 2 in law, the tax, Appeal aw, the Ld. erred in not entitled to 1, as it is a ailable as a ssessee is a co- to its members. cription service aving and fixed he year under on 28.10.2017 iming deduction /-. The return of ny and statutory on the assessee. tion claimed u/s re than three 9 , there was no ng Officer noted posits with Axis u/s 80P(2)(d) of ssessment order

On further app earned from co-oper before the Ld. CIT(A) decision of the Hon’b Sale Society Ltd. [20 the deduction of the before the Income-ta raising the grounds a 4. We have heard the relevant material assessee relied on t Tribunal in the asse wherein the Tribuna passed by the PCIT deduction u/s 80P(2 investment made wit before the Assessing whom interest was ea of the view that intere not a co-operative so u/s 80P(2)(d) of the A provided a chart of th co-operative banks. B provided under Rul Palm Court peal, the assessee filed break rative bank as well as non-co- . The Ld. CIT(A) after verificatio ble Supreme Court in the case o 10] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) rejec assessee. Aggrieved the assess ax Appellate Tribunal (in short as reproduced above. rival submissions of the parti l on record. Before us, the Ld. the decision of the Co-ordinat essee’s own case for assessmen al decided the issue of revision and observed that assessee w 2)(d) of the Act from the intere h the co-operative societies. In g Officer no detail in respect arned, was provided. The Asses est was earned from the Axis Ba ociety, he disallowed the deduct Act. But before the Ld. CIT(A), t he interest earned from co-oper But the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow le 46A of the Income-tax R t M Premises Co Operative Society Ltd. 3 k-up of interest -operative bank on, following the f Totgars Co-op. cted the claim of see is in appeal t ‘the Tribunal’) ies and perused counsel for the e Bench of the nt year 2015-16 n order u/s 263 was entitled for est earned from the instant case of banks from sing Officer was ank which being tion of the claim he assessee has ratives and non- w the procedure Rules, 1962 for admitting the docu Further, the Ld. c computation of the income earned by th ‘income from other s available with the L inability in submittin and in the interest o restore this issue b deciding on following quantum of the inte operative bank carryi of the Banking Regu whether the interest as ‘business income’ income filed for the above, the Assessin accordance with law. 4.1 Accordingly, th allowed for statistical