TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be taxed on disallowance of Rs. 6,89,167/- as assessed by the learned CIT(A) as against the return income of Rs. NIL under the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of an amount of Rs. 6,89,167/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that, the Appellant failed to establish as to how the facts of its case differs from that of the Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in M/s. Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd case', without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to understand that the governing Act is to be followed for arriving at total income of Society and not the general taxing Act i.e., Income Tax Act under the fact and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 6. In view of the above and the other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns made before the Income Tax Authorities. It was submitted that if the interest income is to be assessed as income from other sources, necessarily, the cost incurred for earning such interest income should be allowed as deduction u/s 57 of the I.T.Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society v. ITO reported in (2015) 58 Taxmann.com 35 (Karnataka). 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s.Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The Pr.CIT in ITA No.453/Bang/2020 (order dated 13.08.2021). It was submitted by the learned DR that the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) had analysed the judicial pronouncements on the subject and held that the assessee is not entitled the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) nor u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act in respect of interest income earned out of investments made with a co-operative Bank. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue to be decided is with regard to the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (230 Taxman 309), was dealing with a case where deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was claimed on interest from the deposits made in a nationalized bank out of the amounts which was used by the assessee for providing credit facilities to its members. The Assessee claimed that the said interest amount is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities by the assessee and forms part of profits and gains of business. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after considering SC judgment in case of Totgars(supra) held that since the word income is qualified by the expression "attributable" to the business of Banking is used in Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, it has to receive a wider meaning and should be interpreted as covering receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of business. The Court held a Cooperative Society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income so derived or the capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch income. The Hon'ble Court held that that the aforesaid Supreme Court's decision in the case of Totgars (supra), was not applicable to deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, because the said decision was rendered with regard to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 10. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 395 ITR 0611 (Karn) took a different view and held that interest income earned on deposits whether with any other bank will be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon'ble Court followed decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon'ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to its members continued to be governed by the ambit and scope of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. (Paragraph 13 of the Judgment). 2. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business income from such exemption/deduction category. The words used in Section 80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society .....". The words "in relation to" can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a cooperative Society from a Co-operative Bank. This exclusion by Section 80P(4) of the Act even though without any amendment in Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The only exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The Court finally concluded that it would not make a difference, whether the interest income is earned from investments/deposits made in a Scheduled Bank or in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present appeals, in view of the binding precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court." (Paragraph 19 of the Judgment) 12. The Hon'ble Karantaka High Court in the aforesaid decision also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 389 ITR 0578 (Guj) did not agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra) that the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) is restricted to the sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members which was retained in many cases and invested in short term deposit/security and that the said decision was confined to the facts of the said case and did not lay down any law. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that in the case of Totgars Cooperati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erative Sale Society (supra), in case of a society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, income from investments made in banks does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However, section 80P(2)(d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from funds invested in cooperative societies. Therefore, to the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 14. The CIT was therefore justified in exercising his powers of revision u/s.263 of the Act and directing the AO to tax interest income in question as it is neither of the nature specified in Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 15. The argument of the learned counsel for the Assessee has been that the AO has applied his mind and allowed the deduction and therefore the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be exercised. On this argument, the learned DR p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income by way of interest was chargeable to tax under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act without allowing deduction in respect of proportionate costs incurred as permissible under Section 57. 12. It is no doubt true that the appellant did initially claim deduction under Section 80P(2). Upon the pronouncement of the order by the Apex Court, in these appeals referred to supra, the income earned on the interest is declared as "other income" falling under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Then the next immediate question that follows is as to whether the entire fund i.e., in deposit with the Bank is taxable or the proportionate expenditure incurred by the appellant requires deduction. It is logical that when the Revenue is permitted to assess and recover taxes from assessee under Section 56 by treating the income earned by interest as income from "other sources", the appellant shall be entitled for proportionate expenditure cost incurred in mobilizing the deposit placed in the Bank/s. What can be taxed is only the next income which the appellant earns after deducting cost and expenditure incurred and administrative expenses incurred....