SUNRISE SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUMKUR
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from investments in co-operative banks and societies. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this deduction, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against this order.
Held
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments in co-operative societies/banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank. However, interest earned from fixed deposits in banks is to be considered income from other sources, with relief available under Section 57. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify if the interest income was from investments with co-operative societies and to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on increased profits.
Key Issues
Whether interest income earned from investments in co-operative societies/banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, and if interest from fixed deposits can be treated as business income for deduction purposes.
Sections Cited
80P, 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(d), 234, 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21
M/s. Sunrise Souharda Pattina Sahakari The Income Tax Niyamitha, Officer, 01, NH 4, Kyathasandra, Ward – 1, Tumakuru – 572 104. Tumkur. Vs. PAN: AAHAS7775A APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for Department
Date of Hearing : 29-05-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28-06-2024
ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 27.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC ("CIT(A)") under section 250 of the Act insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
Page 2 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024
The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed at Rs.33,57,640/- as against the returned income of NIL for the assessment year 2018-19, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Grounds on claim of deduction u/s 80P on interest income of Rs.20,03,625/-: a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned assessing officer wherein the interest income claimed as deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i) was disallowed without appreciating the fact that such interest income is attributable to the business of the appellant and is eligible for deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The money invested in the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative banks represents the temporary idle funds of the appellant and the interest received par takes the character of business income and eligible for deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. Without prejudice, the investment on which the interest income is earned is on account of mandatory deposits to be maintained as per the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, thus, interest received on such deposits is eligible for deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice to the ground that the interest received is attributable to business and eligible for deduction under section 8oP(2)(a)(i), the interest income received from a Co-operative society and Co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under section 8oP(2)(d) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234 of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing Officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 6. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant
Page 3 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee/appellant, Sunrise Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha is a Co-operative society, registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and mainly into the activity of providing credit facility to its members and accepting deposits from Members. It had furnished the return of income for the assessment year under consideration i.e., AY 2018-19 on 26.09.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs. 33,57,638/- and total income at Nil after deduction of Rs. 33,57,638/- u/s 80P of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.09.2018 and duly served. The AO passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 04.03.2021 determining the total income at Rs. 33.57,638/- by disallowing deduction of Rs. 13,54,013/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and disallowing deduction of Rs. 20,03,625/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(d).
2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
2.3 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, it is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) on the interest / dividend earned from investments made in other co-operative societies / co-operative banks. In support of the claim, assessee relied on the decisions of this Tribunal. The Ld.CIT(A) however relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Citizen Co-
Page 4 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 operative Society Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 84 taxmann.com 114 and the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Totagars Co-operative Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611 disallowed the claim of assessee u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the act for the year under consideration.
2.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
The Ld.AR submitted that assessee being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members agriculturists. He submitted that assessee claims 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of the interest income earned by it by providing credit facilities to its members which has been disallowed by the authorities below relying on the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra). The Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a co-operative society registered under Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act whereas Citizen Co-operative Society has been observed to be a mutually aided co-operative society and was functioning as a bank that had a RBI approval. He thus submitted that the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to assessee as assessee does not have a RBI approval to function like a bank.
The Ld.AR submitted that insofar as the associate and nominal members are concerned, the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
Page 5 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the case. He referred to the relevant observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court that reads as under: “45. To sum up, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra), must be given effect to. Section 80P of the IT Act, being a benevolent provision enacted by Parliament to encourage and promote the credit of the co-operative sector in general must be read liberally and reasonably, and if there is ambiguity, in favour of the assessee. A deduction that is given without any reference to any restriction or limitation cannot be restricted or limited by implication, as is sought to be done by the Revenue in the present case by adding the word "agriculture" into section 80P(2)(a)(i) when it is not there. Further, section 80P(4) is to be read as a proviso, which proviso now specifically excludes co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business i.e. engaged in lending money to members of the public, which have a licence in this behalf from the RBI. Judged by this touchstone, it is clear that the impugned Full Bench judgment is wholly incorrect in its reading of Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra). Clearly, therefore, once section 80P(4) is out of harm's way, all the assessees in the present case are entitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given to non-members, profits attributable to such loans obviously cannot be deducted. 46. It must also be mentioned here that unlike the Andhra Act that Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra) considered, 'nominal members' are 'members' as defined under the Kerala Act. This Court in U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions' Federation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act and then held: "8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative society has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State Legislature in that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80- P(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of the provisions of the law enacted by the State Legislature under which the cooperative society claiming exemption has been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression "members" in Section 80- P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that
Page 6 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 expression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The said provision reads as under: "2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined in the a pplication for registration of a society or a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws for the time being in force but a reference to 'members' anywhere in this Act in connection with the possession or exercise of any right or power or the existence or discharge of any liability or duty shall not include reference to any class of members who by reason of the provisions of this Act do not possess such right or power or have no such liability or duty;"" Considering the definition of 'member' under the Kerala Act, loans given to such nominal members would qualify for the purpose of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). 47. Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra), the Kerala Act expressly permits loans to non-members under section 59(2) and (3), which reads as follows: "59. Restrictions on loans.— (1) A society shall not make a loan to any person or a society other than a member: Provided that the above restriction shall not be applicable to the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. Provided further that, with the general or special sanction of the Registrar, a society may make loans to another society. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a society may make a loan to a depositor on the security of his deposit. (3) Granting of loans to members or to non-members under sub-section (2) and recovery thereof shall be in the manner as may be specified by the Registrar." Thus, the giving of loans by a primary agricultural credit society to non-members is not illegal, unlike the facts in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra).”
Alternatively, vide Ground no. 3(d), the Ld.AR submitted that, the investments made by the assessee from which interest / dividend has been earned, is to be considered for deduction u/s.
Page 7 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 80P(2)(d). He placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in following cases:- a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10069 of 2016 dated 14.09.2023. b) M/s. Mangalore Yanthrika Meenugarara Prathamika Sahakari Sangha vs. ITA Nos. 1096 to 1098/Bang/2023 vide order dated 01.04.2024 c) M/s. Mudur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Mudur vs. ITO in ITA No. 1038/Bang/2023 vide order dated 22.03.2024
On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the assessee by submitting that principle of mutuality is not satisfied as assessee extends credit facilities to nominal / associate members who do not have any right in the assessee society. In respect of 80P(2)(d) deduction, the Ld.DR submitted that interest / dividend income earned by assessee by making investments which has been simply accrued falls out the ambit of 80P and therefore the Ld.AO has rightly treated the entire interest as income from other sources. He thus vehemently supported the orders passed by the authorities below on both these accounts for the years under consideration. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
Ground no. 2: 6.1 Based on the observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in 431 ITR 1, we note that, Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 defines Members to include nominal / associate members u/s.
Page 8 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 2(f). Considering the definition of “Member” under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. In Ground no. 2, the assessee has raised the plea that assessee was denied exemption amounting to Rs.33,57,640/- out of which Rs. 20,03,625/- pertains to interest received by the assessee from investments made in co-operative societies / co-operative banks out of the temporarily idle funds. It is noted that Ld.CIT(A) in para 5.6 has granted exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) proportionately of Rs. 13,54,015/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra).
6.1.1 We direct the Ld.AO to carry out necessary verification as per the directions in para 5.6 of the impugned order. Having regards to the definition of “members” under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act and also as per the byelaws of the assessee to compute the proportionate deduction in accordance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the cost of repetition, we draw reference from following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra):- “46. It must also be mentioned here that unlike the Andhra Act that Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra) considered, 'nominal members' are 'members' as defined under the Kerala Act. This Court in U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions' Federation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 11 SCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act and then held: "8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act. Since a cooperative society has to be established under the provisions of the law made by the State Legislature in that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80- P(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of the provisions of the law enacted by the State Legislature under which the cooperative society claiming exemption has been formed. It is, therefore, necessary
Page 9 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 to construe the expression "members" in Section 80- P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that expression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The said provision reads as under: "2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined in the a pplication for registration of a society or a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws for the time being in force but a reference to 'members' anywhere in this Act in connection with the possession or exercise of any right or power or the existence or discharge of any liability or duty shall not include reference to any class of members who by reason of the provisions of this Act do not possess such right or power or have no such liability or duty;"" Considering the definition of 'member' under the Kerala Act, loans given to such nominal members would qualify for the purpose of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).”
Accordingly, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on the business activity carried on by it. Accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by assessee stands partly allowed.
6.2 Ground nos. 3(a) to (d): 6.2.1 In these grounds, the assessee is submitting that interest earned from investments in other co-operative societies / banks is also eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i).
6.2.2 It is noted that as assessee is not a co-operative bank, the investment activity cannot be treated as one of the business activity of the assessee. The fixed deposits are maintained by the assessee in order to satisfy the requirements under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and therefore cannot be attributable to the main business carried out by the assessee of
Page 10 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 providing credit facility to its members. We therefore reject the argument of the Ld.AR that the interest earned from investments made by assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee is providing only credit facility forming part of 80P(2)(a)(i) and not into banking activity. However, interest earned from fixed deposits cannot be considered u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) as the same is not attributable to the main business activity of assessee.
6.2.3 The word 'attributable' used in the said Section is of great importance. Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to derive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 (at page 93) as under:— “As regards the aspect emerging from the expression "attributable to" occurring in the phrase "profits and gains attributable to the business of" the specified industry (here generation and distribution of electricity) on which the learned Solicitor-General relied, it will be pertinent to observe that the legislature has deliberately used the expression "attributable to" and not the expression "derived from". It cannot be disputed that the expression "attributable to" is certainly wider in import than the expression "derived from". Had the expression "derived from" been used, it could have with some force been contended that a balancing charge arising from the sale of old machinery and buildings cannot be regarded as profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In this connection, it may be pointed out that whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner suggested by the learned Solicitor- General, it has used the expression "derived from", as, for instance, in section 80J. In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely, "attributable to", has been used, the legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct
Page 11 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 of the business of generation and distribution of electricity.” (emphasis supplied) 6.2.4 Therefore, the word "attributable to" is certainly wider in import than the expression "derived from". Whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning, they have used the expression "derived from". The expression "attributable to" being of wider import, the said expression is used by the legislature whenever they intended to gather receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business. A Co- operative Society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income cannot be said to be attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The society is not carrying on any separate business for earning such interest income. The income so received is the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act.
6.2.5 In this context when we look at the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society's case reported in (2010) 188 Taxman 282, relied by the Ld.DR. Hon’ble
Page 12 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the assessee therein, apart from providing credit facilities to the members, was also in the business of marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. The sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members was retained in many cases. The said retained amount payable to its members from whom produce was bought, was invested in a short-term deposit/security. Such amount retained by the assessee therein was a liability and it was shown in the balance sheet on the liability side. Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. On these facts Hon’ble Supreme Court held the assessing officer was right in taxing the interest income indicated above under Section 56 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court, also clarified that, they are confining the said judgment to the facts of that case.
6.2.6 In the instant case, there is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest was amount due to its members, and that, it was a liability. In fact this amount which is in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for objects of the society, but was required to be invested as required by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Therefore they had deposited the money out of which interest was earned. The said interest is thus derived from carrying on the business of the assessee and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of
Page 13 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In fact similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 66.
6.2.7 We note that recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs. AO reported in (2023) 154 taxmann.com 305 has in detail analysed the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “15.8 Since the words 'bank' and 'banking company' are not defined in the NABARD Act, 1981, the definition in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of section 56 of the BR Act, 1949 has to be relied upon. It states that a co-operative society in the context of a co-operative bank is in relation to or as a banking company. Thus, co-operative bank shall be construed as references to a banking company and when the definition of banking company in clause (c) of section 5 of the BR Act, 1949 is seen, it means any company which transacts the business of banking in India and as already noted banking business is defined in clause (b) of section 5 to mean the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. Thus, it is only when a co-operative society is conducting banking business in terms of the definition referred to above that it becomes a co-operative bank and in such a case, section 22 of the BR Act, 1949 would apply wherein it would require a licence to run a co-operative bank. In other words, if a cooperative society is not conducting the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of section 5 of the BR Act, 1949, it would not be a co-operative bank and not so within the meanings of a state co-operative bank, a central co- operative bank or a primary co-operative bank in terms of section 56(c)(i)(cci). Whereas a co-operative bank is in the nature of a banking company which transacts the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of section 5 of the BR Act, 1949. But if a co-operative society does not transact the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of
Page 14 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 section 5 of the BR Act, 1949, it would not be a co- operative bank. Then the definitions under the NABARD Act, 1981 would not apply. If a co-operative society is not a co-operative bank, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction but on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981 then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act. 15.9 section 56 of the BR Act, 1949 begins with a non- obstante clause which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the said Act, shall apply to, or in relation to, co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to, banking companies subject to certain modifications. The object of section 56 is to provide a deeming fiction by equating a co-operative society to a banking company if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of the said provision. This is because Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949, deals with application of the Chapter to co-operative societies which are co-operative banks within the meaning of the said chapter. For the purpose of these cases, what is relevant is that throughout the BR Act, 1949, unless the context otherwise requires, - references to a "banking company" or "the company" or "such company" shall be construed as references to a co- operative bank. Therefore, while considering the meaning of a co-operative bank inherently, such a co-operative society must be a banking company then only it would be construed as a co-operative bank requiring a licence under section 22 of BR Act, 1949 in order to function as such a bank. 15.10 Further, while considering the definition of a co- operative bank under section 56(cci) of the BR Act, 1949, to mean a state co-operative bank, a central co-operative bank and a primary co-operative bank which is defined in (ccviii) thereof, to have meanings respectively assigned to them in the NABARD Act, 1981 would imply that if a state co-operative bank is within the meaning of NABARD Act, 1981 then it would be excluded from the benefit under section 80P of the Act. Conversely, if a co-operative society is not a cooperative bank within the meaning of section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, it would be entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P of the Act.” 6.2.8 At the outset, assessee invested in SCDCC Bank to meet the statutory requirement as provided u/s. 58 of the
Page 15 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 as it is imperative to carry on the business of providing banking or credit facilities to the members. It is submitted that, the investments are made out of Reserve funds of the society. It was thus submitted that the case law relied on by the Ld.CIT(A) is M/s. Totgars Co-operative Sales Society reported in 322 ITR 283 (SC) which are distinguishable on facts being: It is primarily engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and marketing their agricultural produce. At the time of marketing the produce, the sale proceeds are retained, and as the funds are not immediately required, the same was deposited and interest is earned. The funds used for investment are out of amount payables to the members retained by them. As interest was earned on money due to the members, that was deposited with the Bank, the same was held to be taxed as ‘IFOS’ u/s 56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from paras 10-11 of the judgment).
6.2.9 We note that the authorities have not analysed if the deduction is available to the assessee on interest/dividend earned from fixed deposit / investments u/s. 80P(2)(d), as per Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. KSCARDB vs. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed applicability of section 80P(2)(d) deduction to an assessee in great detail.
Page 16 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 6.2.10 We therefore direct the A.O. to verify whether interest / dividend is received by the assessee out of investments made with Cooperative Societies. If the assessee earns interest / dividend income out of investments with co-operative society, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Cited (supra), the same is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act.
6.2.11 Without prejudice to the above, we make it clear that if the interest earned by assessee from the banks, the same be considered under the head “Income from other sources” and necessary relief to be granted to the assessee u/s 57 of the Act in respect of cost of funds and proportionate administrative and other expenses in accordance with law. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of Ld.AO for denovo consideration with the above observations. Accordingly, ground no. 3(d) raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and Ground nos. 3 (a) to (c) stands dismissed.
However, we also direct that if disallowance if any sustained will also lead to increase the business profits of the assessee and would be eligible for proportionate deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act. In support, we rely on the CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 wherein the issue of claim of higher deduction on enhanced profits has been considered in favour of assessee.
Page 17 of 17 ITA No. 734/Bang/2024 Accordingly, the Ld.AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on such increased profits proportionally. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 28th June, 2024. /MS /
Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore
