THE LUNAWADA URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MAHISAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, LUNAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 809/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)5 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 the assessee is entitled to proportionate expenses deduction on interest income received from a co-operative bank, as per various decisions of the Gujarat High Court. The appeal was allowed based on these precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative credit society, claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Act on income earned from a co-operative bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the deduction, partly disallowing it and partly confirming the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether proportionate expenses are allowable against interest income earned from a co-operative bank for the purpose of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(d),Section 80P(2)(a)(1),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 31-03- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2016-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground raised by the appellant challenging reopening of the scrutiny assessment done on the basis of change of opinion when allowability of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act was thoroughly verified by AO in original assessment.

2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO in making addition on altogether different grounds than mentioned in reasons recorded for reopening of scrutiny assessment.

3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming disallowance by AO of Rs 11, 78, 126/- said to be claimed by the appellant disregarding the fact that the appellant claimed deduction of only Rs. 5, 25, 781/- interest & dividend earned from Co-operative Bank.

4. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO in not appreciating that deduction of Rs. 6, 02, 341/- claimed by the appellant was u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) on income earned from members legitimately allowable.

5. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in holding that co- operative banks are not a co-operative society and that interest on FD/ dividend earned are not allowable deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) but are taxable.

6. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in placing reliance on judgment of Katlary Kirana (327 CTR 0128) of jurisdictional High Court which is rendered in the context of revisional proceedings and not on whether co-operative Bank is a species of genus co-operative society.

7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the act is unjustified.”

3. The assessee is a co-operative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities and financial services to its members. The assessee filed its return of income on 18-12-2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,77,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 11,78,122/- u/s. 80P of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act thereby disallowing deduction/s. 80P to the extent of Rs. 11,78,126/-

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee file appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are not pressed. As regards ground nos. 3 & 4, 2 The Lunawada Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., A.Y. 2016-17 the ld. A.R. submitted that the society earned total income from co-operative bank amounting to Rs. 12,67,248/- and after deduction on proportionate expenditure amounting to Rs. 7,41,467/-, the said deduction for proportionate expanses is claimed based on various decision on net interest income amounting to Rs. 5,25,781/- which is deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee should be granted proportionate expenses on gross interest income and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Surat Sahkari Sangh Ltd. vs. ACIT (72 taxman.com 169).

5.1 The ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in cases of Ashwinkumar Arban Cooperative Society Ltd. 168 taxmann.com 314 (Guj) and Shree Madhi Vighag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. 171 taxmann.com 2022 (Guj).

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has received interest income from co- operative bank and the proportionate expenses has to be allowed as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in various decisions. In the light of decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14-08-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 14/08/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →