Cooperative housing society wins tax deduction appeal, Tribunal cites precedents and consistency.

The Tribunal upheld the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act in favor of the cooperative housing society, allowing the claimed deduction of Rs. 1,86,42,143/- based on precedents and specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing consistency in decisions and the absence of conflicting judgments from the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act was justified in the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of Deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act in the circumstances of the case. The assessee, a cooperative housing society, had received various types of income during the relevant period, including interest income from savings accounts, term deposits, and fixed deposits with cooperative banks. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,86,42,143/- u/s.80P(2)(d) while filing the return of income, but the ld. AO restricted the deduction to Rs. 1709/- during the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) based on various decisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a specific case. The Tribunal also referred to a previous order in the assessee's case for A.Y.2015-16 where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 1,86,42,143/- as claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the precedence set in previous cases and the absence of conflicting judgments from the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, upholding the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act based on previous decisions and the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the consistency in decisions and the absence of conflicting judgments from the Jurisdictional High Court on the matter.

---