2021 (4) TMI 913 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of exemption u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Co-operative banks - HELD THAT - In the case of Karkala Co-op. S. Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO 2021 (2) TMI 854 - ITAT BANGALORE the Bangalore bench of Tribunal has considered issue of eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and it was held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of expenses incurred for earning the interest income. Thus restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to allow deduction of proportionate cost, administrative and other expenses, if the A.O. proposes to assess the interest income earned from bank deposits as income under the head other sources. Denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of commission income earned on sale of e-stamps - HELD THAT - Section 80P(2)(c) prescribes deduction in the case of a co-operative society engaged in activities other than those specified in clause (a) or clause (b). It further states that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) is allowable to so much of its Profits and gains attributable to such activities as does not exceed the amount prescribed. Thus the quantum of deduction is the amount of profits and gains attributable to the activities subject to the maximum amount prescribed therein - the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act in respect of commission income on sale of estamps, since it is not one of the activities mentioned in clause (a) or (b) - it is necessary to first determine the profits and gains attributable to the activities of earning commission income on sale of e-stamps and then compute deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) subject to the limits prescribed in the said provision. Accordingly, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of AO. Accordingly, set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO for examining it afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Denial of exemption u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Co-operative banks.
3. Denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of commission income earned on sale of e-stamps.

Validity of Re-opening of Assessment:
The appeal challenged the order related to the assessment year 2011-12, focusing on the re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had re-opened the assessment due to the rejection of deduction claims under section 80P of the Act in previous assessment years. The AO held that the assessee, dealing with nominal members, failed in the Principle of mutuality, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the case was distinguishable from the cited case, allowing deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for business income but disallowing deductions for interest income and commission income.

Denial of Exemption u/s 80P(2)(d) - Interest Income:
The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for interest income from co-operative banks, relying on a Karnataka High Court decision. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the appellant argued for deduction based on a High Court decision allowing expenses against interest income. The Tribunal agreed, directing the AO to allow deduction of expenses against interest income if assessed under "Income from other sources."

Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) - Commission Income:
The AO rejected the deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) for commission income earned on e-stamps mainly from outsiders. The Tribunal noted that there is no restriction in the Act for such deductions. It directed the AO to re-examine the issue, emphasizing the need to determine profits attributable to the activity for claiming the deduction under section 80P(2)(c).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing deductions for interest income and commission income. The legal issue regarding the validity of re-opening the assessment became academic due to the favorable decisions on the merits. Therefore, the appeal was treated as allowed, and the order was pronounced on 21st April 2021.