2020 (2) TMI 1324 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P - interest income from fixed deposit and other income - HELD THAT - As decided in M/S. THE JAYANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. 2019 (7) TMI 1219 - ITAT BANGALORE the matter was restored back to the file of AO by the Tribunal for a fresh decision after examining the facts in the light of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of The Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT and of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumukur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Ltd. 2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Respectfully following this Tribunal order, in the present case also, we restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision - Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act for interest income from fixed deposit and other income for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore involved the assessee filing appeals against two separate orders of the CIT(A)-7 for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The main issue in both years was the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act pertaining to interest income from fixed deposits and other income. During the hearing, the assessee's representative cited a Tribunal order in a similar case and requested a similar direction to restore the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision. The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' orders.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to the cited Tribunal order and decided to restore the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision. The Tribunal highlighted the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a specific case, emphasizing the distinction in the nature of interest income and the applicability of deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the source of funds for investments remained the same in different assessment years, leading to the decision to provide the assessee with an opportunity for a fresh decision by the AO after examining the facts in light of the relevant judgments.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, following the precedent set in the cited Tribunal order. The judgment emphasized the importance of reevaluation based on relevant legal interpretations and directed a fresh decision by the AO after considering the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles.