https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389197 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against Pr. CIT's revision order u/s 263. The dispute concerned deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks. The AO had initially allowed the deduction, but Pr. CIT revised this as prejudicial to revenue. ITAT held that where conflicting HC decisions exist, the view favoring the assessee should be preferred. Following Karnataka HC and Gujarat HC precedents, ITAT ruled that interest income from cooperative bank investments qualifies for s.80P(2)(d) deduction. Since AO's original assessment took a legally supportable view backed by jurisdictional tribunal precedent, Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional powers. The revision order was set aside and AO's assessment u/s 143(3) was restored. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389197 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against Pr. CIT's revision order u/s 263. The dispute concerned deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks. The AO had initially allowed the deduction, but Pr. CIT revised this as prejudicial to revenue. ITAT held that where conflicting HC decisions exist, the view favoring the assessee should be preferred. Following Karnataka HC and Gujarat HC precedents, ITAT ruled that interest income from cooperative bank investments qualifies for s.80P(2)(d) deduction. Since AO's original assessment took a legally supportable view backed by jurisdictional tribunal precedent, Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional powers. The revision order was set aside and AO's assessment u/s 143(3) was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389197