9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 34 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - assessee has earned interest income from investment of idle funds with cooperative bank - HELD THAT - Assessee is entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income on the investment made in the Co-operative bank. The CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which nowhere required any interference at this appellate stage. We also nowhere found illegality and infirmity in the finding of the CIT(A) in question, therefore, we affirm the finding of the CIT(A) in question and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the interest income earned from investments with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). 3. Consideration of the Karnataka High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Society and its applicability. 4. Whether the CIT(A)'s decision should be set aside and the AO's order restored. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) The primary issue revolves around the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction of ?1,66,63,607, which included interest income from fixed deposits with cooperative banks. The CIT(A) reasoned that a cooperative bank is a type of cooperative society and thus falls within the scope of Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements, such as the ITAT Mumbai's decision in The Niacin Laxmi Chs Ltd and Lands End Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs. ITO, which upheld similar claims for deductions. Issue 2: Interest Income from Investments with Cooperative Banks The revenue argued that the interest income earned from investments with cooperative banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), citing that cooperative banks are not considered cooperative societies under this provision. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal highlighted that cooperative banks are invariably registered as cooperative societies under relevant state laws. Therefore, the interest income derived from investments with cooperative banks should be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal supported this interpretation by referencing multiple cases where similar deductions were allowed. Issue 3: Applicability of Karnataka High Court's Decision in Pr. CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Society The revenue cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Society, which held that interest income from investments with cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the decision was based on different facts and circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue at hand had already been addressed by the ITAT in various cases, which upheld the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks. Issue 4: Restoration of AO's Order The revenue sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the AO's decision, which had disallowed the deduction. The Tribunal, however, found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal reiterated that the CIT(A) had judiciously and correctly decided the matter, and there was no need for interference at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from investments with cooperative banks. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly interpreted the law and judicial precedents, and there was no basis for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2020.
|
