SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1., KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 676/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2016-173 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 Section 80P(4) bars a cooperative bank from claiming the deduction itself, not a cooperative society earning interest from deposits in such a bank. Therefore, the interest income derived from a cooperative bank is allowable as a Section 80P deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from deposits with a cooperative bank. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) disallowed this claim, relying on Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in light of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(d),Section 80P(4),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 16-01-2020 passed in case No. KOP/10408/2018-19 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing its 80P(2)(d) deduction claim of Rs.33,56,546/- in the course of assessment dt. 14-12-2018 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order.

Sahyadri Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned disallowance and find no merit therein. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has derived the impugned interest income from its deposits with cooperative bank which has been held as not eligible for the impugned deduction in light of Sec.80P(4) of the Act. The Revenue’s case is that this statutory provision does not apply in an instance of a cooperative bank. I observe that the same only bars a cooperative bank from claiming the impugned deduction itself rather than a cooperative society deriving interest income from its deposits made in such an institution. Coupled with this, case law in State Bank of India Vs.CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Totagar Cooperative Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Kar.) already decides the instant issue in assessee’s favour and against the department thereby holding that interest income derived from a cooperative bank is indeed allowable as Sec.80P deduction. I accordingly delete the impugned disallowance in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th May, 2022.

(S.S.GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 30th May, 2022 Satish/Doc

Sahyadri Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →