SHRI ARIHANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD8(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 163/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 April 2025AY 2020-21Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it is an integral part of the society's business. The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents, including decisions of the High Court and ITAT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative credit society, earned interest income from short-term deposits. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, treating the society as a co-operative bank not eligible for such deduction. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a co-operative credit society on its deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR
Hearing: 24/04/2025Pronounced: 25/04/2025

आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

ITA No.162/PUN/2025 [A]

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →