TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959 and is engaged in providing the credit facilities to its members. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 27.10.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) & u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the assessee has filed the details and submissions in support of return of income filed. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of deduction u/sec 80P2(d) of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 35,01,583/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the A.O but sustained the denial of claim of deduction u/sec 80P(2)(d) of the Act and granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Filling aggrieved Assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present Appeal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the parties to the Appeals, perused the order passed by the Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the law applicable thereto. 6. Undisputedly Assessee Society has invested is surplus funds with Co-Operative banks and earned the interest income to the tune of Rs. 6,96,725/- and claimed it is deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which has been disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar's Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having being decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. in ITA No.561/M/2021 order dated 09.09.2022 by settling the issue in favour of the assessee by distinguishing the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Totgar's Cooperative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized 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 cooperative 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. 80P 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 subsection (4) of Sec. 80P, the assessee would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest income that was earned on the amounts which were parked as investments/deposits with cooperative banks, other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 cooperative 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 registration of cooperative societies;" We are of the considered view, that though the cooperative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars cooperative 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 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. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (....