AGRICULTURE COLLEAGE FARM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-2(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1696 & 1698/PUN/2025
िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2017-18

Agriculture College Farm Co- operative Credit Society Ltd.,
Agricultural College Pune,
Shivajinagar, Pune- 411005. PAN : AADAA3783A
Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Pune.

Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 22.05.2025 and 06.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years
2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively.
2. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
Assessee by :
Shri C. V. Deshpande
Revenue by :
Smt. N. C. Shilpa

Date of hearing
:
19.11.2025
Date of pronouncement
:
26.11.2025

ITA Nos.1696 & 1698/PUN/2025

2
ITA No.1698/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2017-18 :
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 10,65,462/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the interest of Rs. 9,99,936/- and Dividend of Rs. 65,526/- earned by the assessee Co-operative Society from deposits with Co-operative Banks.
1.1
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC) has failed to appreciate that Co- operative Bank, even though it is engaged in the banking business, remains a Co-operative Society and as such the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income
Tax Act in respect of the interest earned on deposits with Co- operative banks.
2. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

3
assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 27.06.2019 was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh to decide the issue of deduction of Rs.10,65,462/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) and asked the assessee to justify the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act with regard to interest and dividend income of Rs.10,65,462/- earned on its investments from PDCC
Bank. The assessee in response to above notice relied on the decision passed in the case of Shri APD Jain Pathshala Sevekanchi
Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, since according to the assessee the facts of above case were identical to the facts of the case of the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer by relying on Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sales
Society Limited vs. ITO, 322 ITR 283 (SC) disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,65,462/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act and vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act by determining taxable income at Rs.10,65,460/- as against Rs.Nil income returned by the assessee.

ITA Nos.1696 & 1698/PUN/2025

4
5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the submission furnished by the assessee and by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service
Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 123 taxmann.com 161 (SC), Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
6. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
7. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified.
Ld. AR further submitted that an identical issue came up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2018-19
in ITA No.1697/PUN/2025 order dated 01.09.2025 and the Tribunal following the recent decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Annapurna Nagari Sahkari Pathsanstha
Maryadit Yawal vs. ITO in ITA No.313/PUN/2025 order dated
07.05.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly,
Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and further requested the Bench to pass an appropriate order in the light of earlier decision passed by coordinate Bench of ITA Nos.1696 & 1698/PUN/2025

5
this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2018-19
(supra).
8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that an identical issue came up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2018-19 in ITA No.1697/PUN/2025 and the Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.2025 following the recent decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Annapurna
No.313/PUN/2025 order dated 07.05.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :-
“5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. In the assessment proceedings of assessee which is a co- operative society for A.Y. 2018-19 completed on 23.02.2021, Ld. AO has disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act at Rs.
10,89,512/- claimed by the assessee towards income from Co- operative Banks. The account of the Assessing Officer (AO) has been affirmed by Ld. CIT(A). We however find that the instant issue is no longer “res integra” by virtue of catena of decisions taking consistent view that interest income erred from deposits with Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Recently this Tribunal in the case of M/s Maharashtra JPAHPECCS Limited

ITA Nos.1696 & 1698/PUN/2025

6
(Supra) dealing with the similar issue has allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act observing as follows:-
4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. It is an admitted fact that impugned addition is regarding denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act for the interest income earned from Cooperative Bank namely PDCC at Rs.17,51,124/-. Lower authorities have denied the deduction as PDCC is not a Cooperative Society. Before us, assessee has furnished paper book and referring to page 12 of the paper book our attention has been drawn to Certificate of Registration as per which