BILARI COOPERATIVE CANE UNION, BILARI,BILARI, MORADABAD vs. INCOME TAX WARD 2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2127/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that interest income derived from surplus funds in fixed deposits with scheduled/nationalized banks is derived from an eligible business activity under section 80P(2). Consequently, it should not be assessed as income from 'other sources'.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose from proceedings under section 143(3). The lower authorities refused section 80P deduction on interest income from surplus deposits kept in scheduled/nationalized banks.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income earned by the assessee on surplus funds deposited with scheduled/nationalized banks is deductible under section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 80P,Section 80P(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 03.11.2025

Date of hearing 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059015667(1), dated 22.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have refused section 80P deduction to the assessee qua her interest income derived from surplus deposits kept in scheduled/nationalized banks amounting to Rs.76,92,252/-; in assessment order dated 21.09.2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Both the learned lower authorities hold that such interest income as in the present instance derived from bargaining of surplus funds in fixed deposits with scheduled/nationalized banks could not be held as “derived” from an eligible business activity under section 80P(2); and, therefore, the same deserves to be assessed as income from “other sources” only.

4.

Mr. Gupta also quotes (2025) 170 taxmann.com 336 (Gujarat) Brahmarshi Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT deciding the very issue in the Revenue’s favour. The assessee on the other hand draws strong support from the Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2017) 396 ITR 371] (AP) wherein their lordships have rejected the Revenue’s identical stand. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no valuable guidance has come from hon’ble jurisdictional high court at Allahabad on the instant issue. That 2 | P a g e being the case, we hereby quote Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-I v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) to conclude that the view supporting the assessee’s case in such an instance has to be adopted; to accept the instant sole substantive ground against the department in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →