INCOME TAX OFFICER, VASHI , NAVI MUMBAI vs. J R COLLEGE EMPS CO OP SOC, MUMBAI

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,46,91,094/- under section 80P of the Income tax Act, 1961to the assessee by J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. J R College EMPS Co. Op. Soc. 2 ITA No. 4467/MUM/2023 holding that the assessee is a co holding that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co ty and not a co- operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax operative bank and is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative agricultural and rural deve agricultural and rural development bank and thus as per sub lopment bank and thus as per sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing of Section 80P of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for availing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act? deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act? 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer in assessment order passed u/s 143(3 assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of deduction short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of short ‘the Act’) dated 19.09.2022 disallowed the claim of u/s 80P(2)(i) of the Act following u/s 80P(2)(i) of the Act following assessment orders in assessment orders in earlier assessment years including assessment year 2017 assessment years including assessment year 2017-18. However, the 18. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the sa Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance following the decision of the id disallowance following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shravati Pathina Shravati Pathina Niyamita vs ITO [2022] Niyamita vs ITO [2022] Taxmann.com 170(Bang-Trib) and Trib) and Kochi Bench of the ITAT in Ochanthuruth nch of the ITAT in Ochanthuruth Service Co Operative Bank Ltd Service Co Operative Bank Ltd [2023] 152 taxmann.com 437 (Cochin taxmann.com 437 (Cochin - Trib.). . Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT raising the grounds as reproduced above.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Ac identical issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Ac been adjudicated by the Tribunal in for been adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3817/M/2023 for been adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3817/M/2023 for assessment year 2017 assessment year 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The relevant 18 in the case of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under :

We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties. As the issue in dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of dispute of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been held in favour of the assessee by the Co the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) of the Tribunal (supra) ,therefore, respectfully following the same, w espectfully following the same, we do not find any e do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, the sole sole ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Revenue is dismissed.