9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai - 28 (the CIT(A) - Mumbai 28 erred in not allowing deduction under section 80P (2) (a) (i) of the Act in respect of the interest income earned by the Appellant on the deposits kept by it with co-operative banks and other banks. 2. The CIT(A) - Mumbai 28 erred in allowing Deduction under section 80P (2) (d), as the income from Other Sources of the Appellant. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 3 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative credit society, registered unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Quepem Urban Credit Society Ltd. vs ACIT (supra), has partly allowed, appeal filed by the assesse, where the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act, 1961 only with respect to investments held with a co-operative bank and accordingly, directed the Ld. AO to ensure that no deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is allowed on interest income earned from a scheduled bank. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that the issue involved in present appeal filed by the assessee is squarely covered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a)(i) of the I.T.Act, 1961. We, further noted that the ITAT Mumbai 'D' bench, in the case of Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit vs ITO (supra) had considered an identical issue and held that where assessee, a co-operative credit society had not undertaken any of banking business and was providing credit facilities to its members only and not to general public, it would not hit by provisions of section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and thus, entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act, 1961. In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is not carried out any banking business to public at large, but was engaged in the providing cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
