Which cases are most cited on Section 80P(2)(d)?

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) — 2,664 citing judgments; Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283) — 1,283 citing judgments; Pr. CIT v. Totagars (395 ITR 611) — 1,074 citing judgments; Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (431 ITR 1) — 999 citing judgments; State Bank Of India v. CIT (389 ITR 578) — 817 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80P(2)(d)?

BharatTax indexes 2,440 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) is the decision most relied on for Section 80P(2)(d), cited in 2,664 judgments. When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.149

Section 80P(2)(d) falls under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 149 (Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 149 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 80P(2)(d) is CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192), cited in 2,664 of the 2,440 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d)

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.

88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court

2,664

citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

Pr. CIT v. Totagars

395 ITR 611 · 2017 · High Court

1,074

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court

999

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

State Bank Of India v. CIT

389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court

817

citing judgments

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.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society

392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court

762

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court

577

citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court

541

citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. ITO

230 Taxmann 309 · 2015 · High Court

527

citing judgments

A cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in cooperative activities. It also clarifies the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from investments made in cooperative banks, after duly considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT

397 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court

499

citing judgments

A co-operative credit society engaged in banking business with the general public, accepting deposits from non-members and advancing loans to non-members, is treated as a co-operative bank. Such a society falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 80P(4) and is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

The Kalakkodu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No.1194, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the connected stay applications are dismissed

ITA 21/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan IRS, CIT DR and Smt

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2687/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2686/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S Nellimood Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Nellimood vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 32/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2014-15 M/S Nellimood Service Co- Ito, Ward-2(2), V. Operative Bank Ltd. Thiruvananthapuram

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rajmala Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya,Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Nannambra Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 404/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Nannambra Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 403/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Sharadchandra Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1041/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1041/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

ITO, Palghar vs. Jankalyan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Jawhar, Jawhar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2792/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2792/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Ito V/S. Jankalyan Nagari Sahakari Aayakar Bhawan, Bidco बिाम Patsanstha Marya Jawhar Road, Palghar, Palghar, Dhanashree Apartment, Maharashtra-401404 Shivaji Path, Jawhar, Dist. Palghar, Maharashtra- 401603 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeaj7654C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Laxmi Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2692/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadake, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Cooperative Cane Development Society Ltd Morna, Morna Muzaffarnagar vs. AO NFAC Delhi, NFAC Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5764/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Vs. Assessing Officer, Development Society Ltd., Nfac, Delhi Morna, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaefc0580D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Fcl Gahu Kamgar Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Manmad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1067/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1067/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Fcl Gahu Komgar Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Malegaon. New Hall, Food Corporation Of India, Tal Nangaon, Manmad. Maharashtra – 423104. Pan: Aaaaf1271D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.02.2025 For The A.Y.2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 81

The Badshahpur Primary Agriculture Co-Op Society Limited, Badshahpur vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1823/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1823/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 The Badshahpur Primary Agriculture Vs Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Teekli Ward-4(1), Road, Badshahpur, Haryana-122101 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacat6170H Assessee By: Sh. Arpit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Arpit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nirgudsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(5). Pune, Akurdi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.435/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Ito, Ward-10(5), Pune. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At Post Nirgudsar, Dist.- Pune- 412406. Pan : Aabas8790H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Was Not Justified In Denying The Claim Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80P Of The Act Holding That Co-Operative Banks Are Not Co-Operative Societies. The Deduction Be Allowed Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)