9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entre [in short the NFAC ] Delhi s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1061121688(1), dated 19.02.2024, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee s sole substantive grievance claiming sec. 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) deduction(s) of Rs. 43,42,704 representing interest from cooperative bank(s) and other nationalized bank(s) involving Rs. 39,37,664/- and Rs. 4,05,040/- respectively; it is noticed that the same is no more res integra in light of this tribunal s recent coordinate bench s order ITA. No. 1249/PUN./2018 dated 07.01.2022 in The Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. PCIT s case has rejected the Revenue s identical arguments as follows : 3. After culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Pr. CIT called for the assessment records of the assessee. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that the assessee had during the year shown interest income from FDs with Cooperative Banks amounting to Rs. 75,38,534/-, against which it had claimed deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was observed by the Pr. CIT, that the A.O while framing the assessment had allowed the aforesaid c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revisional powers vested with him under Sec. 263 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the issue as regards the eligibility of the assessee for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from investments/deposits lying with co-operative banks was squarely covered by the various orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz., (i). M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 3155/Mum/2019; dated 29.11.2019 (ITAT G Bench, Mumbai); Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(2)(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 6547/Mum/2017 (ITAT Mumbai); and (iii). Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad, ITA No, 308/Pun/2018 (ITAT Pune). 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. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) relied on the order passed by the Pr. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d), as the same would have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issue before us. 80P(2)(d) (1). Where in the case of an assessee being a cooperative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in subsection (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2). The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:- (a)................................................................................. (b)................................................................................. (c).................................................................................. (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the cooperative 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments held with a cooperative bank is covered in favour of the assessee in the following cases: (i). M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 3155/Mum/2019; dated 29.11.2019 ( ITAT G Bench, Mumbai); (ii). Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad, ITA No, 308/Pun/2018 (ITAT Pune) (iiii). 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 subsection (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. Altho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
