TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e id and password from his ex- employee, Mr. Puneet, in order to open the portal of the assessee resulting in this delay of ninety days. (An affidavit from Mr Puneet is also enclosed). He prayed for condonation of the delay and for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.1 The ld. DR objected to the said reasons but left it to the discretion of the Hon'ble Bench. 2.2 Considering the reasons put forth, in the instant case, we are not fully convinced regarding sufficiency of the same explaining the delay of ninety days, required to obtain a password (through forget password mode), but in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose a token cost of only Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) payable to the "Prime Ministers National Relief Fund", within fifteen days of communication of this order ( evidence to be submitted to JAO ). 3. There are two gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he total income of the assessee society. (Addition Rs. 33,27,350.52)" 5. Subsequently, the matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority, has been discussed in details by considering all relevant decisions of various High courts and the Hon'ble Supreme court, on the issue relating to the allowability of the claim of deductions u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the claim by observing as follows: ( para - 11 of the appeal order ): "11. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi and Totgars Cooperative Sale Society, decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court in case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali' Ltd vs. ACIT dated 04.01.2022 and of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT-I Chandigarh V. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Bank Ltd. the claim of the appellant for deduction u/s 80P of amounts invested with other cooperative Banks, are held as not tenable in the current year either u/s 80P(2)(a) or u/s 80P(2)(d). 6. Now, the assessee is before the tribunal on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 23. Now, coming to the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we find that there are two decisions in case of Pr. CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society and in both of these decisions, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society vs ITO (Supra). In case of first decision referred by the Id AR, it was held that according to section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the amount of interest earned from a Co-operative Society Bank would be deductable from the gross income of the Co-operative Society in order to assess its total income. In the latter decision referred by the Id PCIT (he has not referred to the earlier decision), it was held that interest earned by the assessee, a Co-operative Society, from surplus deposits kept with a Co-operative Bank, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We therefore find that there are divergent views of the non-jurisdictional High Court on the issue of eligibility of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kolkata/ 2024 order dated 04th August, 2025, where the Hon'ble tribunal has taken a contradictory view on similar set of facts and has observed as follows: "8. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal provisions enumerated in the preceding paras that the exemption provisions have to be strictly interpreted, the submissions of the Ld. DR and as has been elaborately discussed and brought out in the orders of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bangalore Club as well as Totagars (supra) in which reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest received from Cooperative Banks, even though they are Cooperative Societies, is not allowable in view of the express provision of sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act as the Cooperative Banks have been treated at par with the Scheduled Banks and the deduction u/s 80P of the Act is allowable only for the interest received from the Cooperative Society per se and not from the Cooperative Bank. The Ld. DR has amply demonstrated how the reliance on the decisions by the Ld. AR is not applicable to the facts of the case being di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of "Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd.", and has also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of "Ashwin Kumar Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. 11 TMI 971 (Guj HC) and has observed as follows : 9.2 The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under: "13. Now we must look at section 80P(2)(d), which reads as follows: - "....... (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; ........." 14. It is a matter of record that SIMFED earned interest from investments made in two co-operative banks, namely, Sikkim State Cooperative Bank Limited and Citizens Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, both registered as co-operative societies under the Sikkim Co-operative Societies Act, 1978. As stated hereinbefore, these investments were made from the surplus funds and statutory reserves of SIMFED as required under sections under the relevant provisions of Sikkim Cooperative Societies Act, 1978, more specifically, sections 57 to 66, under Chapter V of the Sikkim Co-operative Societies Act, 1978, which mand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Totgars' Cooperative Sale Society Ltd (supra) is not applicable in the facts of our case. So far as judgment of the Karnataka High Court is concerned - which was relied upon by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while rendering its impugned judgment and order dated 18th June, 2025 - the Gujarat High Court in Ashwin Kumar Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) has considered the said Karnataka High Court judgment and has clearly held the same to be distinguishable and not applicable in a similar fact situation as our present case. 18. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts of the instant case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. For reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 18th June, 2025, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos.: 1582/KOL/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year: 2018-19, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 20. Tax Appeal No. 02 of 2025 is accordingly allowed." 10. As such, respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court (wh....