MANANTHAVADY CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,WAYANAD vs. ITO WARD 2 , KALPETTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing verification of interest/dividend income from investments with co-operative societies. It also clarified that if interest from banks is treated as 'Income from other sources', relief under Section 57 should be granted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit co-operative society, initially did not claim deduction under Section 80P. After realizing potential eligibility based on High Court judgments, it appealed to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which rejected the claim. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee, a credit co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on its income, particularly interest earned from investments with co-operative societies and banks.
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.
- Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT999 citing431 ITR 1 · 2021 · SC
- PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.208 citing442 ITR 141 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 31.1.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “As per section 80P, it is provided that:- (l) Where in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub section (2), there shall be deducted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub section (2) in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums referred to in subsection (l) shall be the following namely:(a) In the case of a co-operative society engaged in — (i) Carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or………….. -
2. The appellant is a credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. Hence it is eligible for deduction u/s Mananthavady Co-op Urban Society Ltd., Wayanad Page 2 of 4 80(P)(2)(a)(i) and accordingly, the appellant claimed deduction in the appeal petition. However, the CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing the eligible deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i).
3. For the A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2010-1 1, A.Y. 201 1-12, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 201718, the appellant got assessment order allowing the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) on the above grounds, copy of these are enclosed.
4. Further, in the light of the judgments of the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka, Society in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT. (ITA No. 212 of 2013) and judgments of the High Court Karnataka in the case CIT Vs. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (ITA No. 598/2013), the appellant has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been claimed.
5. For these and other grounds that may be permitted to be furnished at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is humbly prayed that the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) may be set aside and grant deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to the appellant.
Facts of the case are that the assessee is a Credit Co- operative Society engaged in extending credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30-09-2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,21,460/- without claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act and paid tax on the same. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) with further additions of Rs. and total assessed income of Rs.16,91,870/- and demanded tax thereon Rs.2,00,310/-. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka, Society in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT. (ITA No. 212 of 2013) and judgments of the High Court Karnataka in the case CIT Vs. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (ITA No. 598/2013), the assessee has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been claimed. Based on the above grounds, an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)/NFAC had been filed on 10-06-2016 by the assessee. In the appeal order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/ 1043488708(1) dated 20-06-2022 the claim u/s 80P of the Act, NFAC had rejected the appeal and not Mananthavady Co-op Urban Society Ltd., Wayanad Page 3 of 4 granted the deduction claimed before it u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the NFAC, the assessee is once again in appeal before us.
As regards the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, we 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)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. 3.1. We also take note of the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Peroorkada Serivice Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Vilappil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 442 ITR 141 (Ker.), wherein held as under: “The assessee was a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The assessee was engaged in banking activity and providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee claimed complete deduction of income under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act including interest income earned by the assessee from the deposit of idle funds with Co-operative bank and treasury treating the said income as business income. The Assessing Officer rejected the claims of the assessee for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and treated the interest income as income from other sources. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the case of the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the entire claim of deduction of interest income earned by the assessee as business income. On appeal to the High Court:
Held, (i) that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative BankLtd. V. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC), held that since the assessee was a registered co-operative society and the deduction claimed was interest earned from loans lent to members and amount invested with a co-operative bank the threshold eligibility of deduction was admissible to the assessee and accordingly the income earned by way of interest from members was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Hence interest from amounts deposited with co-operative bank was entitled to deduction under section 80P.
MAVILAYI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC) followed.
Mananthavady Co-op Urban Society Ltd., Wayanad Page 4 of 4 (ii) That interest from a treasury was not better positioned than interest received from non-members. The interest earned from district co- operative banks and the State Co-operative bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did come within section 80P(2)(d). Interest income received from treasury was inadmissible for deduction.”
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The Tirurangadi Service Co-Operative Bank… vs ITO, Ward 3, MalappuramCochin13 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and 1 other authority
The ITAT found no evidence of lending to non-members and clarified that lending for non-agricultural purposes does not imply lending to non-members. However, the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving its statu...
- Bharananganam Service Co-Operative Bank… vs National E-Assessment Centre, DelhiCochin9 Dec 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding interest from cooperative banks. For interest earned from commercial banks, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to examine the status of surplus funds and cost o...
- The Trivandrum Govt.Employees Co-Op… vs The Additional Joint Deputy Assistant…Cochin7 Nov 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Revenue has the onus to prove the assessee is a co-operative bank and deals with the general public to deny Section 80P deduction. Citing jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found...
- Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chhindwara vs M. P. Rastriya Koyla Khadan Majdoor Sangh…Jabalpur11 Jan 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest income from bank deposits by the Assessing Officer was without basis and directed its deletion. It also clarified that only income from specified activities under Secti...
- Vadakkevila Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd… vs The ITO, KollamCochin25 Sept 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal also fo...
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026