BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. It held that when two plausible views are possible, and the AO has adopted one, the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the AO's view. The Tribunal distinguished the reliance placed on the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case by the PCIT.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P on its entire income, resulting in a declared income of 'Nil' for AY 2020-21. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, specifically regarding the deductibility of interest income.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 powers when the AO's order was based on a plausible view after due inquiry, and whether interest income from co-operative banks and commercial banks was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ABENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. PCIT, Hubli dated 23.03.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1074892709(1) passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order of revision passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi under Section 263 of the Act dated 23/03/2025, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026