State Bank Of India v. CIT

389 ITR 578High Court2016#60 most cited

What is State Bank Of India v. CIT authority for?

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

817

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State Bank of India v CIT · Section 80P(2)(a)(i) · Section 80P(2)(d) · cooperative society · investment income · exemption · short-term deposits · securities · surplus funds · not business income

Also reported as

72 Taxmann.com 64241 Taxmann 163

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 143(3)Section 80P(4)Section 80PSection 263Section 250Section 2(19)

Issues it is cited on

section 80(2)(d)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 2(19)section 80p(4)section 194a(3)(v)section 80p(2)(c)section 80p(2)(a)(iii)section 80p(1)section 80p(2)(d)section 194a(3)section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 80p(2)

Judgments citing State Bank Of India v. CIT

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-sectio…

Shri Kalyan Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby relying upon the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) 5. The Ld. AR submitted that ground nos.1 & 2 are decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of SBI vs. CIT (Supra) but the Ld. AR submitted that alternate plea of the assessee in respect of restricting the claim of deduction of expenses from interest income of Rs.10,09,672/- should have b…

Shri Kalyan Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 398/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby relying upon the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) 5. The Ld. AR submitted that ground nos.1 & 2 are decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of SBI vs. CIT (Supra) but the Ld. AR submitted that alternate plea of the assessee in respect of restricting the claim of deduction of expenses from interest income of Rs.10,09,672/- should have b…

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vill: Siriyadih, Distt: Balodabazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 157/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vill: Risda, Dist: Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 154/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vill: Pond Dist: Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Raipur

ITA 153/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Village: Tamaseoni, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 150/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 150/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 137/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 134/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 133/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 132/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 131/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 130/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 129/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 128/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 126/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 125/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 124/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 123/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-secti…