TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant is an Cooperative housing society not carrying on the business of banking or credit facilities to its members and thus it entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erroneously applied the judgment of Totagar Co-operative Sale Society Limited (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar.) in respect of interest from Banks. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has failed in allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on account of interest earned on deposits from Co-operative Banks whereas various judgments are in the favour of appeal's claim for deduction u/s 80P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paper book. The first set of paper book is comprising of 67 pages, enclosing therein the financial statement of the assessee, bye-laws, the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act and the original assessment completed on 31.05.2016. The second set of paper book has 79 pages, enclosing therein the judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee. The learned AR's limited prayer is that investment with BDCC bank and other co-operative Banks is only on account of statutory compulsions and is in compliance with section 58 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Therefore, it was submitted that the receipt of interest income on such investments ought to have been allowed as a deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The learned AR in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y liquidity reserve. The assessee without furnishing the necessary details cannot expect the Tribunal to restore the issue to the A.O. for de novo consideration, especially when this case as its origin from the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. As mentioned earlier, the assessee's prayer before the Income Tax Authorities as well as the ground raised before the Tribunal is only regarding non-granting of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act and not u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the main contention of the assessee (without raising any ground before the Tribunal) that it is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act is rejected. 7.1 The assessee has raised an alternate submission, namely, if interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 net income which the appellant earns after deducting cost and expenditure incurred and administrative expenses incurred by the assessee. 13. Accordingly, we answer the question of law and hold that the Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the interest earned by the appellant is an income from other sources without allowing deduction in respect of the pr....