PAREKH MARKET CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2409/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 August 2024AY 2021-226 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed a deduction of INR 1,24,613/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) disallowed INR 93,527/-, contending that interest income from a co-operative bank was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, relying on prior judgments.

Held

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P could not be denied on the ground of late filing as the return was submitted within the extended due date. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., it clarified that Section 80P(4) is applicable only to co-operative societies holding an RBI banking license. Since the assessee does not possess such a license, the provisions of Section 80P(4) do not apply, making the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from a co-operative bank allowable.

Key Issues

1. Whether interest income received by a co-operative society from another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). 2. The applicability of Section 80P(4) when the assessee is not a co-operative bank holding an RBI banking license.

Sections Cited

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K(SMC

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 10/04/2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'] for the Assessment Year 2021-22, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Intimation, dated 15/03/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "Being aggrieved by the order of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru and learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal), NFAC, this appeal petition is filed on the following amongst other grounds of appeal, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another.

On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding order of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru making partial disallowance of claim under section 80P without appreciating that these were not incorrect claims apparent from any information in the Return of Income in terms of section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding order of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru disallowing partial claim of deduction of Rs. 93,527/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that interest income from co-operative Society was Income from other sources on which deduction under section 80P was not admissible.

On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding order of, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru partially disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the fact, that the appellant had filed return of income within the "second due date" applicable in terms of section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the intimation issued under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had also mentioned due date for filing return of income as "extended due date" since, book of accounts of your appellant were liable to audit under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Society Act, 1960.”