KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 November 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)12 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the landmark decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, holding that distinction based on the category of members is not permissible for Section 80P deduction if the society complies with state cooperative law. The Tribunal also relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. regarding interest income from cooperative banks.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karassery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly upheld the disallowance of its Section 80P deduction claim. The appeals were heard ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, and whether distinctions based on member categories are permissible for such deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 13.08.2024Pronounced: 06.11.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.426/Coch/2023
ITA No.427/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

- Asst.Year 2015-2016 Karassery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, vs. The Income Tax Officer Mukkam Ward 2(3) Kozhikode – 673 602. Kozhikode. PAN AACAK0055A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None--- Respondent by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 ORDER PER BENCH : These twin assessee’s appeals in 427/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, respectively arises out of the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, Delhi’s DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052404554(1) and 1052956029(1) dated 27.04.2023 and 18.05.2023, in proceedings Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte against the assessee.

2.

We now advert to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.326/Coch./2023for the former assessment year 2015-2016 wherein the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has partly upheld the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing it’s sec.80P deduction claim reading as under :

3.

Suffice to say, the Revenue’s first and foremost vehement contention is that the assessee has not derived it’s interest income from regular members only and therefore, the same is not allowable for the deduction herein in light of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd vs. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 114 (SC).

4.

Learned DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that their lordships’ recent landmark decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) has settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a distinction qua the category of members is not permissible once the same

5.

The Revenue’s next vehement arguments in light of The Totagars Cooperative Sales Society vs. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) that assessee’s interest income derived from deposits in cooperative banks herein is not eligible for the impugned deduction. We notice in this factual backdrop that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in it’s recent judgment in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) has already accepted the assessee’s contentions as under : - “12.2. Section 80P deals with Co-operative Societies' computation of income. As already noted, it has four sections and several sub-sections and clauses. The Parliament has considered the various situations in which the exigible income and the deductable income of the assessee is considered while computing the income of the assessee. For getting deduction, in our considered view, the assessee must also establish that & 427/Coch/2023. Karassery SCB Limited. the interest income earned by the assessee is from a Co-operative Society. As a matter of fact, in the case on hand, there is no dispute that it is not from a Co- operative Society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The interest income earned from District Co-operative Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments with any other Co-operative Society. The source of interest income is from Bank and Treasury, interest income received from Treasury be included in the computation of total income of the assessee. In other words, interest earned from Treasury is inadmissible for deduction and interest income from Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

& 427/Coch/2023. Karassery SCB Limited. and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does not come within the ambit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.”

6.

We accordingly accept the assessee’s sole substantive grievance as well as the “lead” appeal ITA.No.426/Coch./2023 in very terms and leave it open for the learned to Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation as per law after examining all the relevant facts. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Same order to follow in assessee’s latter appeal ITA.No.427/Coch./2023 since raising identical sole substantive grounds.

& 427/Coch/2023. Karassery SCB Limited. 8. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.426 and 427/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 06th day of November, 2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →