2026 (5) TMI 1465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt order by the Assessment Unit, Delhi u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 24.08.2022, for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 28,77,528/ made by the Ld. AO. Your appellant, therefore, prays that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 28,77,5287-be allowed to it. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 28,77,528/-. Brief facts as culled out from records in this regard are that assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowance. 4. On the above stated facts, issue before us is no longer res integra as the aspect of allowability u/s. 80(2)P(d) is extensively dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of the PCIT vs. Totagar Cooperative Sales Society Limited [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169 (Kar). Relevant findings given in para 7 to 12 are as under: "7. However, the contention being taken by the learned counsel is untenable. For the issue that was before ITAT, was a limited one, namely whether for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co-operative Bank should be considered as a Co-operative Society or not? For, if a Co-operative Bank is considered to Co-operative Society, then any interest earned by the Co-operative Society from a Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was not justified in denying the said deduction to the assessee respondent. 11. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. IΠΟ (2010) 322 ITR 283/188 Taxman 282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P(2)(d) of the L.T. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT. Act. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. Thus, neither of the two substantial questions of la canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue even arise it is the present case. 12. For the reaso....