TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Jayesh Dadia For the Revenue : Shri Bharat Andhale (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - I The Ld. AO erred in assessing the income at ₹ 49,74,210/- as against ₹ 26,37,860/- as per return of income filed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO erred in (a) Disallowing the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of ₹ 13,39,633/- on interest earned from investment in co-operative banks. (b) Relying on Citizen Co-oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SSUE No. 1 4. Issue no. 1 is general in nature which nowhere required any adjudication. ISSUE No. 2 5. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance in sum of ₹ 13,39,633/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest income earned from investment in co-operative banks. At the outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the issue has duly been covered by the decisions of Hon ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Lands End Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA. No.3566/M/2014 for the A.Y.2009-10 dated 15.01.2016, Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA. No.6547/M/2017 for the A.Y. 2014-15 dated 25.04.2018, Merwanjee Cama Park Co-op Housing Society Ltd. in IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agar s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. In the case of Totagar s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd v/s ITAT (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court while interpreting the section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act held that surplus funds not immediately required in the business and invested in the short term deposit would be assessable under the head income from other sources where the Cooperative society is engaged in carrying on business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and consequently no deduction is allowable u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Whereas in the case before us the issue is whether a co-operative society which has derived income on investment with cooperative banks is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The provisions of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as income from business whereas latter provides for deduction in respect of income by way interest and dividend derived by assessee from its investments with other cooperative society. Thus it is amply clear that a cooperative society can only avail deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)(i) in respect of its income assessable as business income and not as income from other sources if it carries on business of the banking or providing credit facilities to its members and has income assessable under the head business whereas for claiming u/s 80P(2)(d) it must have income of interest and dividend on investments with other Co-operative society may or may not be engaged in the banking for providing credit facilities to its members and the head under which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Sale Society (78 Taxmann.com 169) has decided the issue and the relevant finding has been given in para no. 7 to 12 mentioned below.:- 7. However, the contention being taken by the learned counsel is untenable. For the issue that was before ITAT, was a limited one, namely whether for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co-operative Bank should be considered as a Co-operative Society or not? For, if a Co-operative Bank is considered to Co-operative Society, then any interest earned by the Co-operative Society from a Co-operative Bank wo necessarily be deductable under Section 80P(I) of the Act. 8. The issue whether a Co-operative Bank is considered to be a Co-operative Society is no longer res integra. For the said issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 8OP(2)(d) of the I.T. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT. Act. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. Thus, neither of the two substantial questions of la canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue even arise it is the present case. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances and also considering this fact that the similar issue has been involved in the above cited ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
