THE MUMBAI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue of proportionate indirect expenditure to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee will be allowed to furnish fresh calculations and justifications for the allocation of indirect expenses.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Co-operative Housing Society, earned income from advertisements and claimed deduction under Section 80P(2) based on mutuality. The AO treated this as business income and disallowed proportionate indirect expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
What were the issues?
The primary issue is the allowability of proportionate indirect expenditure against advertisement income earned by a co-operative housing society, considering the principle of mutuality.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 19.03.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
2 आअसं. 3362/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14) (A.Y. 2013-14) 2. Sh. Mandar Vaidya with Sh. Kalpesh Turalkar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the solitary addition assailed in the present appeal is in respect of income from Advertisement Rs. 6,81,697/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society. The assessee earned gross total income of Rs. 45,97,960/- and claimed deduction of the aforesaid income u/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) based on the principles of mutuality. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected assessee’s claim qua income from advertisement and held the aforesaid income as ‘Income from Business’. The AO while computing income under the head ‘Business Income’, allowed direct expenditure in relation to earning of income from advertisement and made addition of Rs. 6,81,693/-. The assessee claimed that there were some indirect expenditure as well for earning of advertisement income that were not allowed by the AO. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also rejected the claim of assessee. The ld. counsel referred to the table at page no.3 of the assessment order wherein the assessee had claimed proportionate indirect expenditure against the income from advertisement. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue can be referred back to the file of AO for fresh examination. The asssessee would furnish fresh calculations for claiming proportionate indirect expenditure with justifications.
Sh. T. Shankar representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the working of allocation of indirect expenditure was considered by the AO and the same has already been rejected. No useful purpose would be served by restoring the issue back to the file of AO.
3 आअसं. 3362/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14) (A.Y. 2013-14) 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The short issue in the present appeal is with regard to the assessee’s claim of indirect expenditure in earning of advertisement expenses. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the issue can be restored back to the file of AO, the assessee would furnish fresh calculations and the basis of allocation of indirect expenditure. Without commenting on the merits of the issue and allowability or otherwise of the indirect expenditure, the issue is restored back to the file of AO to examine working already filed or revised working, if any filed by the assessee along with the basis of allocation of indirect expenditure in earning income from advertisement. Needless to say that the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding this issue afresh, in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 3rd day of February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 03/02/2022 S.K., Sr. PS �ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु� CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.
4 आअसं. 3362/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14) (A.Y. 2013-14)
More judgments on Section 80P(2)
- The Mrutyunjaya Large Size Co Operative… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PalakolITA 839/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2022-23
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2299/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2020-21
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2298/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2018-19
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2297/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Mumbai Vidi Tambakhu Vyapari Sahakari… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(2), Piramal…ITA 1801/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 May 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026