TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal of A.Y 2011-12 are taken) interalia that :- "1. Attracted Section - Section 250 Issue - Not granted the opportunity to counter the assertion taken by the CITAPPEALS/ NFAC for the first and only time during the entire History of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT- APPEALS/NFAC stated in its order that "As there is clear evidence in the 105th & 114th Annual Reports of M/s. Shamrao Vithal cooperative Bank limited , Mumbai, that it was no more a cooperative society, further as it has more than 105 branches in seven states and further as it has RBI licence w.e.f.24.08.1984, M/s. Shamrao Vithal Multi state scheduled cooperative Bank limited, is clearly a Bank and not a society." The CIT- APPEALS/NFAC has neither granted any opportunity to counter the above theory which it has taken up in an arbitrate manner nor it heeded any of the judicial pronouncements by ITAT- Mumbai and various other High courts in similar issue duly submitted within the written submission. 2. Attracted Section-Section 250 Issue - Not granted the opportunity of being heard through virtual or personal mode despite same has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 115JC Issue - Addition made on account of disallowance of Section SOP deduction is void as the assessee qualifies all prerequisites to claim Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as a matter of fact Rs. 17,57,654/- has been earned as Interest from the fixed deposits maintained by the assessee (which is a Co-operative society) with SVC Bank which is also a co-operative society, hence the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite of the fact that all conditions which are sine qua non for availing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) has been complied with, yet disallowing the same by way of adjustment under an intimation order u/s 143(l)is bad in law. 7. Attracted Section-143(1) Issue- Determination of Tax Liability is bad in law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Income tax of Rs. 5,45,267/- is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 8. Attracted Section-Section 234B&234C Issue - Levying Interest under section 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he SVC Bank Ltd, appeals could not be filed in time and stated that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide. Keeping in view the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987 1987 AIR 1353 to advance the cause of justice, delay of 2 to 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned as assessee society being not having regular tax adviser and some unavoidable circumstance which is a sufficient cause. 6. We have heard the Ld.DR for the Revenue, perused the documents available on record, in the light of the settled principles of law. From the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, assessment orders and impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the sole question arises for determination in this case is "As to whether Assessee Society is entitled for deduction qua the interest income received from parking its surplus funds with Co-operative Bank under section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961?". 7. Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) have denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act qua its interest income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that the aforesaid issue had exhaustively been looked into by the ITAT, ,,G" bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Solitaire CHS Ltd, Vs. Pr.CIT- 26, Mumbai ITA No.3155/Mum/2019, dated 29.11.2019, wherein the Tribunal had observed as under: "6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought, for adjudicating, as to whether the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from the investments/deposits made with the co-operative banks is in order, or not. In our considered view, the issue involved in the present appeal revolves around the adjudication of the scope and gamut of sub-section (4) of Sec. SOP as had been made available on the statute, vide the Finance Act 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007. On a perusal of the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, we find, that he was of the view that pursuant to insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. SOP, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Pr. CIT, that with the insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. SOP, vide the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007, the provisions of Sec. SOP would no more be applicable" in relation to any co-operative bank, other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. However, at the same time, we are unable to subscribe to his view that the aforesaid amendment would jeopardise the claim of deduction of a co-operative society under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of its interest income on investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. In our considered view, as long as it is proved that the interest income is being derived by a co-operative society from its investments made with any other co-operative society, the claim of deduction under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 80P(2)(d) would be duly available. We find that the term ,,cooperative society" had been defined under Sec. 2(19) of the Act, as under:- "(19) "Co-operative society" means a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any state for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITJD (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same being distinguishable on facts had wrongly been relied upon by him. The adjudication by the 'Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case was in context of Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i), and not on the entitlement of a cooperative society towards deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income on the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). At the same time, we 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 Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had observed that the interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligib....