BABANRAO AWATADE NAGARI BIGARSHETISAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT MANGALWEDHA,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD -1, PANDHARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 647/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 November 2022AY 2018-194 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 while Section 80P(4) restricts deductions for cooperative banks, it does not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from deposits with other cooperative societies.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a credit cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from bank deposits. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied this deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) despite the provisions of Section 80P(4).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 80P(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 29-06-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act.) in relation to the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income of Rs.32,59,760/-.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is a credit cooperative society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of accepting of deposits and providing credit facilities to its members. A return was filed declaring total income at Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee earned interest on bank deposits amounting to Rs.32,91,008/- from various Cooperative Banks and claimed as deductible u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO and the ld. CIT(A) denied the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal

4.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee is a co- operative society which earned interest from various Co-operative Banks. It is seen that the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT (ITA No.1249/PUN/2018) has held, vide its order dated 07-01-2022, that though co-operative banks, other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, are not eligible for deduction pursuant to insertion of section 80P(4) w.e.f. 1.4.2007, but this provision does not dent the otherwise eligibility u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of a co- operative society on interest income on investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank, which is a registered co-operative society as per section 2(19) of the Act, defining co-operative society to mean a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any law for the time being in force. The assessee is also a Co-operative society and registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

1.

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Division Bench, I overturn the impugned order and direct to grant deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest earned from various Co-operative Banks.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →