SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a plausible view, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned on investments. The Assessing Officer allowed this deduction. However, the Principal CIT invoked Section 263, holding the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, citing that interest income from investments in banks/financial institutions other than co-operative societies is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
What were the issues?
Whether the Principal CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to revise an assessment order where the Assessing Officer had allowed a deduction based on a plausible interpretation of law, even if another view was possible?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(22)Show listHide 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.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO1,283 citing322 ITR 283 · 2010 · SC
- CIT v. Max India Ltd.1,162 citing295 ITR 282 · 2007 · SC
- Pr. CIT v. Totagars1,074 citing395 ITR 611 · 2017 · HC
- CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.990 citing203 ITR 108 · 1993 · HC
- CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.897 citing332 ITR 167 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
- Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT543 citing99 ITR 375 · 1975 · HC
- 533 citing
- Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO527 citing230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · HC
- Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT499 citing397 ITR 1 · 2017 · SC
- Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO486 citing188 Taxmann 282 · 2010 · SC
- CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State348 citing336 ITR 516 · 2011 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sales Society306 citing83 Taxmann.com 140 · 2017 · HC
- Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT245 citing113 ITR 84 · 1978 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ashish Rajpal124 citing320 ITR 674 · 2010 · HC · Read judgment
- 447 (Kar). 3. Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO Ward 2(2), Mysore118 citing377 ITR 464 · 2015 · HC
- Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.114 citing95 Taxmann.com 327 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain103 citing31 ITR 872 · 1957 · HC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Chemsworth Pvt. Ltd.24 citing275 Taxmann 408 · 2020 · HC · Read judgment
- Patni Telecommunication (P) Ltd. v. ITO17 citing22 SOT 26 · 2008 · ITAT
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chandrika Educational Trust8 citing207 ITR 108 · 1994 · HC
- Patani Telecom (P.) Ltd. v. ITO8 citing22 SOT 220 · 2008 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: 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 ld. PCIT, Bengaluru-1 dated 05.02.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1072922073(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: M/s. Sri Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga M/s. Sri Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga M/s. Sri Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga
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 →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026