9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le view, and therein concluded that the assessee would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for dislodging the same. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view taken by the A.O at the time of framing of the assessment was clearly supported by the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO [ 2016 (2) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI] Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we set aside‟ his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.3155/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - Shri S.Rifaur Rehman, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Raje sh B. Shah, A.R F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act, when the Ld. PCIT has merely borrowed the changed opinion formed by the A.O. and has failed to express an independent view on the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T Act by the Appellant. (6) The Learned Pr.CIT has erred in Law as well as on facts while passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without considering the fact that the issue of deduction U/s.8OP(2)(d) has al ready being approved by the order of Hon‟ble ITAT in the case of MIs Lands End Cooperat ive Societ y Ltd, ITA No .3566/MUM/2014 and Sea Green CHS LTD, ITA No .1343/MUM/2017. (7) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the aforesaid ground(s) of appeal as deemed fit. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee which is a cooperative society had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 20.09.2014, declaring its total income at Rs.nil. The assessment under Sec.143(3) was framed by the A.O. vide his order dated 143(3), dated 14.09.2016, and the returned income of the assesses was accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(2)(1), Mumbai [ITA 6547/Mum/2017, dated 25.04.2018]. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the ld. A.R that as the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction and had not only sought to review the plausible view that was taken by the A.O after necessary deliberations, which was in conformity with the order of the jurisdictional bench of the Tribunal, therefore, his order may be vacated and that of the A.O be restored. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R‟) relied on the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec.263 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P on the interest income received on the investments/deposits lying with the co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT finding the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3), dated 14.09.2016 as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, had rightly set aside‟ his assessment with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue therein involved. 6. We have heard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .................................... (b)............................................................................................ (c)............................................................................................ (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; On a perusal of Sec. 80P(2)(d), it can safely be gathered that interest income derived by an assessee co-operative society from its investments held with any other co-operative society shall be deducted in computing its total income. We may herein observe, that what is relevant for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) is that the interest income should have been derived from the investments made by the assessee co-operative society with any other co-operative society. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT, that with the insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P, vide the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007, the provisions of Sec. 80P would no more be applicable in relation to any co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. ITO-Range-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj) , had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments 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 , also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) is concerned, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
