TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee would not be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), in respect of the interest income on the investments made with the co-operative bank. - Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 6159/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : PR Chauhan, DR For the Assessee : Anil Sathe, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. 10179/16-17 dated 21.07.2017. The Assessment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on the same under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction by stating that the co-operative bank is different than a co-operative society, as per provisions of section 80P(2). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Land End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 3566/Mum/2014 for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 15.01.2016 allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: - 8.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by rejecting the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of ₹ 14,88,107/- being interest on investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 sub-section (1) 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. The whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of much attributes. (d)In respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income. From the close perusal of the provisions of u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) it is clear that the former ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which is assessable as business income and not as income from other sources. Whereas in distinction to this, the provisions of section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act provides for deduction in respect of income of a coop society by way of interest or dividend from its investments with other coop society if such income is included in the gross total income of the such coop society. In view these facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of ₹ 14,88,107/- in respect of interest received/derived by it on deposits with co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held 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, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt, that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P was to provide that the cooperative banks which are functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. We are of the considered view that the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny assistance, for the reason that in the said matter the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination. That as regards the reliance placed by the ld. D.R on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), the High Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
