TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in Tumkur Merchants Sauhard Credit Co-op Ltd. (230 Taxman 309), ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (2010, 322 ITR 283) wherein it was categorically held that Interest income earned from fixed deposits was assessable under the head . "Income from other sources" and not "Business Income", and hence such Interest income did not qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the subsequent decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (2017, 395 ITR 611 dated 16.06.2017) which effectively overruled the earlier decision of the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Case (2015, 230 Taxman 309). 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the overwhelming majority of decisions of other High Courts, namely (i) Delhi High Court in Mantola Co-op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd (2015, 229 Taxman 68) (ii) Karnataka High Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (2017, 395 ITR 611) (iii) Gujarat High Court in State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion raised by the assessee. Observing, that as co-operative banks were commercial banks and not a co-operative society, therefore, the Pr.CIT was of the view that the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d). In the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction, the Pr. CIT was of the view that the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3), dated 07.03.2016, therein allowing the assesses claim for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr.CIT not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein "set aside" the order of the A.O with a direction to redecide the issue afresh and reframe the assessment. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Pr.CIT has carried the matter in appeal before us. As the present appeal involved a delay of 52 days, therefore, the ld. A.R took us through the reasons leading to the same. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the then counsel of the assessee soc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec.263 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P on the interest income received on the investments/deposits lying with the co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT finding the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3), dated 07.03.2016 as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, had rightly 'set aside' his assessment with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue therein involved. Our attention was also drawn by the ld. D.R to his written submissions and certain judicial pronouncements in support of his aforesaid contention. 7. We have heard the ld. 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 or not 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. In our....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... derived by an assessee co-operative society from its investments held with any other co-operative society shall be deducted in computing its total income. We may herein observe, that what is relevant for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) is that the interest income should have been derived from the investments made by the assessee co-operative society with any other co-operative society. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Pr. CIT, that with the insertion of sub-section (4) to Sec. 80P of the Act, vide the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007, the provisions of Sec. 80P 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 jeopardize 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of subsection (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. 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), as had been relied upon by the ld. D.R before us, had held, that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d); but then, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble 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 co-operative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and A....