INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(1)(4), MUMBAI V. RAHEJA GREEN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

MA 92/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously ruled in favor of the Raheja Green Co-operative Housing Society Limited regarding a deduction claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had relied on a conflicting decision and sought to have the matter reconsidered. However, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, emphasizing that the interest income earned by the society from its investments with cooperative banks was entitled to the deduction claimed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776512 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2025
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Printed from counselvise.com, K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Seimens India Ltd., and Anr., State Bank of India vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY PARIKH

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 92/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1943/Mum/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(1)(4), 706, 7th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to 43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 vs. Raheja Green Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Society Office, Ground Floor, Raheja Estate, Kulupwadi Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 PAN : AAAAR4856Q (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Parikh For Revenue : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1943/Mum/2023, dt. 28-09-2023. 2. In its Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has submitted that in the assessee’s case, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while passing its order dt. 28-09-2023 has relied on decision of another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 6547/Mum/2017, dt. 25-04-2018. It was submitted that in the latter decision, the Co-ordinate Bench has discussed the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, 395 ITR 611 (Karn.) and Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No. 92/Mum/2024 Co-operative Sale Society, 392 ITR 74 (Karn.) and has held that since the above decisions are conflicting and thereafter, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Seimens India Ltd., and Anr., 156 ITR 11 (Bom) has allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, the assessee being a housing Co- operative Society and interest earned is not an income from its business activities, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act as held in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society, 395 ITR 611 (Karn.). It was accordingly requested that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court be considered and appropriate order may be passed in the present case. 3. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the Revenue in its Miscellaneous Application has not pointed out any mistake of facts or in law, which has been committed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dt. 28-09-2023. It was submitted that while passing the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has relied on the decision in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) and has held that the interest income earned by the assessee-society from its investment held with a Co-operative bank would be entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was submitted that the Revenue is in fact referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), which has in turn referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, and deciding on the merits of the case, it was held in the said case that the interest income earned by a Co-operative society on its investment held with a Co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It was submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in the latter decision has relied on the decision of Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No. 92/Mum/2024 the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society, and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT, 389 ITR 578 (Guj) and thereafter referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Seimens India Ltd., and Anr., (supra) has held that where there is a conflict between the decisions of the non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee to be preferred as against the view against the assessee. It was in that context, it was submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, 395 ITR 611 (Karn.) was not followed. It was submitted that in the instant case, the Revenue in the garb of the Miscellaneous Application, cannot seek a review of a well reasoned order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, which in turn has followed the decision in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra). It was submitted that where the Revenue has any grievance, it could have challenged the said decision before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and which to the best of information available with the assessee, the Revenue has not challenged the said decision. It was accordingly submitted that there is no basis in the present Miscellaneous Application so filed by the Revenue and the same be dismissed. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal related to claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the deposits placed by the assessee society with Saraswat Co- operative Bank and SVC Co-operative Bank. In the impugned order, the Co-ordinate Bench has decided the matter on the merits of the case as well as after referring to the catena of decisions passed by the other Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and as part of that, has drawn reference to the decision in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A. No. 92/Mum/2024 Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) and, thereafter, has given a clear finding that interest income earned by the assessee co-operative society from investment held with the Co-operative banks would be entitled for claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Nothing has been pointed out in the impugned order in terms any mistake in law or in facts, which has crept in the order so passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Further, I agree with the contentions advanced by the Ld.AR that where the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), the Revenue is at liberty to take appropriate action as so permissible under law. As far as the impugned order so passed by the Coordinate Bench and the Miscellaneous Application so filed by the Revenue is concerned, I don’t find any basis for any indulgence that too within the limited scope of section 254(2) of the Act. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application so filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-09-2025 Sd/- [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15-09-2025 TNMM Printed from counselvise.com 5 M.A. No. 92/Mum/2024 Copy to : 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The D.R. ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Dy./Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "