SIR. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMOGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) needs to examine the facts of the present case in light of two conflicting Karnataka High Court judgments to determine the applicability of each.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest earned from investments. The CIT(A) denied this deduction, relying on a Karnataka High Court judgment. The assessee argued that a different Karnataka High Court judgment was applicable due to differing facts.
What were the issues?
Whether interest earned by a co-operative society on its investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, and the applicability of different High Court judgments based on the specific facts of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Pr. CIT v. Totagars1,074 citing395 ITR 611 · 2017 · HC
- Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO527 citing230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A), Davangere dated 19.07.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the denial of the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s.80P [2] [a] [1] of the I.T.Act, in respect of a sum of Rs. 36,38,522/- being the interest earned on investments made by the appellant holding that the same has to be assessed under the head "Other Sources" under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT [A] ought to have appreciated that the gross interest earned by the appellant cannot be regarded as income without allowing proportionate expenses incurred by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon' ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.
5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16.06.2017 rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society as reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karn). He submitted that the facts of this case are different and therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. He submitted that in the present case, another judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO as reported in 230 Taxman 309 is applicable and therefore, the matter should be restored back to AO or CIT (A) for a fresh decision by following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). At this juncture, the bench wanted to know regarding the facts of the present case because the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in both these cases i.e. PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) are on the same line but the conclusion is different because the facts are different. The bench pointed out that in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra), the money deposited in bank was out of liability of the assessee and in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra), the money deposited in bank was not out of liability but out of assessee’s own funds and therefore this decision is in favour of the assessee. The bench pointed out that if the facts in the present case are similar to that of the facts in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society (supra) then the issue should be decided against the assessee but if the facts of the assessee are similar to that of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) then the issue is to be decided in favour of the assessee. In reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the facts are not readily available and therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR of revenue also agreed to this proposition put forward by the ld. AR of assessee.
I have considered the rival submissions and I feel it proper that the matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of these two judgments rendered in the case of PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) and Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) and if it is found that the facts of the present case are in line with the facts of the PCIT and Another Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society(supra) then the issue may be decided against the assessee and if the facts of the present case are in line with the facts of the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO(supra) then the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) should pass necessary order as per law in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hospet vs Gayatri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha…Bangalore17 Jul 2025Remanded
Also relies on Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that interest earned on investments of surplus funds in banks, even if not cooperative societies, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, the Tribunal also considered the eligibi...
- Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Udupi vs Brahmavara Vyavasaya Seva, BrahmavaraBangalore16 May 2024Remanded
Also relies on Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if investments with cooperative banks are made in compliance with the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, the interest income earned would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The...
- Nagapura Credit Co Operative Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), BangaloreBangalore14 May 2024Remanded
Also relies on Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if a co-operative bank is not conducting banking business as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, then interest earned from it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). If it is condu...
- M/S. the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-Operative… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), MysuruBangalore3 Jan 2024Remanded
Also relies on Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal noted the substantial delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal also discussed the legal position regarding deduction under Section 80P for inte...
- M/S. Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, BallariBangalore14 Feb 2023Remanded
Also relies on Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if interest income arises from investments made under statutory compulsions for running the society's business, it should be considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a...
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026