TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13/PUN/2023, 226/PUN/2023, 248/PUN/2023, 257/PUN/2023, 258/PUN/2023, 299/PUN/2023, 322/PUN/2023, 323/PUN/2023, 324/PUN/2023, 326/PUN/2023, 334/PUN/2023, 340/PUN/2023, 346/PUN/2023, 353/PUN/2023, 358/PUN/2023, 388/PUN/2023, 426/PUN/2023, 450/PUN/2023, 460/PUN/2023, 475/PUN/2023, 477/PUN/2023, 491/PUN/2023, 496/PUN/2023, 502/PUN/2023, 503/PUN/2023, 504/PUN/2023, 771/PUN/2022, 889/PUN/2022 Ajinkaya Madhyamik Shikahak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha Marayadit, Matoshri Nagari Sahakari Pat. Sanstha Maryadit, Jankalyan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Kalbhairavnath Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Abhinav Chetana Nagari Sahakari Pathasanstha, Dhanwantari Nagari Sahakari Patsansath, Mahadevnagar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Janse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 23) Shri Prasad S. Bhandari (Sl. No. 8) None (Sl. No. 11, 16 & 17) Shri Girish Ladda (Sl. No. 12 & 19) Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan (Sl. No. 20, 25, 26 & 27 ) Shri Abhay Avchat (Sl. No. 24) Shri M. K. Kulkarni & Mrs. J.R. Chandekar (Sl. No. 28) Shri Manoj R. Jain (Sl. No. 29) For the Revenue by : Shri J. P. Chandraker (Sl. No. 1 to 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29) Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde (Sl. No. 22) ORDER PER BENCH : These bunch of twenty nine (29) appeals preferred by the different assessees for the various assessment years mentioned in the caption emanates from the orders of the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. Since the identical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the issue de novo in the light of the judicial precedents referred to by him in his order u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT. The Parliament had conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 230 taxmann 309 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble Telangana and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v CIT [(2017) 396 ITR 371 took a view that such interest income is attributable to the activities of the society and, therefore, eligible for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or other banks, in our considered opinion, the power of revision cannot be exercised by ld. PCIT in view of the fact that even on remand to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is barred from taking a view against the assessee in view of the consistent view taken by this Tribunal that such interest income qualifies for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thus, the act of revision by the ld. PCIT would be futile exercise and mere a useless formality. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising the power of revision vested with him u/s 263 of the Act in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal file....