Solapur District Police Employees Credit Co-Op Society , Solapur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Solapur

ITA 893/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5514 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80P; 56

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE , BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 893 /P U N/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 13 SOLAPUR DISTRICT POLICE EMPLOYEES CREDIT CO - OP. SOCIETY, MILLENNIUM TOWERS, RAILWAY LINES, OPP. GARUD BUNGLOW, SOLAPUR 413001 PAN : AABAS7620J ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), SOLAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 - 01 - 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 01 - 2019 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 9, PUNE DATED 14 - 02 - 2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUND : 2 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED A SUM OF RS .1,46,892/ - BY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT INTEREST IS EARNED ON NORMAL BANKING OPERATION AND IS AN INTE GRAL PART OF BANKING BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE NO INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE UNDER 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 3 . SHRI P.S. SHINGTE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLITARY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL AGAINST DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST INCOME U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME ON LOANS AND ADVANCES EXTENDED TO THE STAFF MEMBERS AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 P(2)(A)(I) ON THE SAID INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME AND HAS HELD THE INTEREST INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EARNING OF INTEREST ON LOANS ADVANCED TO MEMBERS IS PART OF NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I . SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN ITA NO. 6 04/PN/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 DECIDED ON 19 - 08 - 2015; AND II . INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURESHDADA JAIN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA IN ITA NO. 589/PUN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 DECIDED ON 18 - 11 - 2018. 4. SHRI RAJESH GAWALI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PERUSED. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION RS.1,46,892/ - CLAIMED U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) ON THE INTERES T INCOME EARNED FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. WE FIND THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH T HE ISSUE ; W HETHER INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE SAID CASE ARE AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY DISPUTE TO BE DECIDED IN THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHETHER THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.25,01,774/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SHORT TERM DEPOSITS WITH BANKS HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S.56 OR THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I). WE F IND THE AO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) TREATED THE INTEREST EARNED FROM SUCH SHORT TERM DEPOSITS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 10. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDS CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. (SUPRA) THE INTEREST EARNED FROM SUCH SHORT TERM DEPOSITS WITH BANK IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I). WE FIND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY SUCH COOPERATIVE SOCI ETIES ON SHORT TERM DEPOSITS WITH SCHEDULED BANKS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FROM PARA 6 ONWARDS READ AS UNDER : 6. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH EMERGES IS, THE SUM OF RS. 1,77,305/ REPRESENTS THE INTEREST EARNED FROM SHORT TERM DEPOSITS AND FROM SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. IT IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY OTHER BUSINESS. T HE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS FOR A SHORT DURATION WHICH HAS EARNED INTEREST. THEREFORE, WHETHER THIS INTEREST IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIE S TO ITS MEMBERS, IS THE QUESTION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTICE THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW I.E., SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I): 4 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 'DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES: 80P (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO OPERA TIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1) SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: (A) IN THE CASE OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN (I) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR (II) TO (VII) XX X X XX THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.' 7. THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE' USED IN THE SAID SECTION IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE' AS SUPPOSED TO DERIVE FROM ITS USE IN VARIOUS OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN THE CASE OF CAMBA Y ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) AS UNDER: 'AS REGARDS THE ASPECT EMERGING FROM THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' OCCURRING IN THE PHRASE 'PROFITS AND GAINS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SPECIFIED INDUSTRY (HERE GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY) ON WHICH THE LEARNED SOLICITOR GENERAL RELIED, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, HAS DELIBERATELY USED THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' AND NOT THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. IT CANNOT BE DI SPUTED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' IS CERTAINLY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. HAD THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM' BEEN USED, IT COULD HAVE WITH SOME FORCE BEEN CONTENDED THAT A BALANCING CHARGE ARISING FROM THE SALE OF OLD MAC HINERY AND BUILDINGS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED SOLICITOR GENERAL, IT HAS USED THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM', AS, FOR INSTANCE, IN SECTION 80J. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE EXPRESSION OF WIDER IMPORT, NAMELY, 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO', HAS BEEN USED, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED T O COVER RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. 8. THEREFORE, THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' IS CERTAINLY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING, THEY HAVE USED THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' BEING OF WIDER IMPORT, THE SAID 5 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 EXPRESSION IS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE WHENEVER THEY INTENDED TO GATHER RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS. A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, EARNS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS BY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE INTEREST INCOME SO DERIVED OR THE CAPITAL, IF NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED TO BE LENT TO THE MEMBERS, THEY CANNOT KEEP THE SAID AMOUNT IDLE. IF THEY DEPOSIT THIS AMOUNT IN BANK SO AS TO EARN INTEREST, THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDIN G CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. THE SOCIETY IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY SEPARATE BUSINESS FOR EARNING SUCH INTEREST INCOME. THE INCOME SO DERIVED IS THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITY OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS BY A CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 9. IN THIS CONTEXT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. TOTGARS CO OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED, THE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, APART FROM PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS, WAS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WAS RETAINED IN MANY CASES. THE SAID RETAINED AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO ITS MEMBERS FROM WHOM PRODUCE WAS BOUGHT, WAS INVESTED IN A SHORT TERM DEPOSIT/SECURITY. SUCH AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS A LIABILITY AND IT WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, SUCH INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE EITHER TO THE ACTIVITY MENTIONED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, THE APEX COURT HELD THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME INDICATED ABOVE UNDER SECTION 56 O F THE ACT. FURTHER THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE CONFINING THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT LAYING DOWN ANY LAW. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS INVESTED IN BANKS TO EARN INTEREST WAS NOT AN AMOUNT DUE TO ANY MEMBERS. IT WAS NOT THE LIABILITY. IT WAS NOT SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THEIR ACCOUNT. IN FACT THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF PROFITS AND GAINS, WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LENDING MONEY TO THE MEMBER'S, AS THERE WERE NO TAKERS. THEREFORE THEY HAD DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN A BANK SO AS TO EARN INTEREST. THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THEREFORE IT IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 80P(1) OF THE A CT. IN FACT SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., [2011] 200 TAXMAN 220/12 TAXMANN.COM 66. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 6 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 11. NO DOUB T, A CONTRARY DECISION TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO CITED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHERE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS EARNS INTEREST INCOME ON SURPLUS FUNDS DEPOSITED AS FIXED DEPOSITS, SUCH INTEREST INCOME WOULD BE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THUS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I). HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, TWO DIVERGENT DECISIONS WERE CITED BEFORE US AND NO DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 WE HOLD THAT THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COU RT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SHORT TERM DEPOSITS KEPT WITH BANKS HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE GRO UNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURESHDADA JAIN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA (SUPRA) THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) BY CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WAS CONSIDERED. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING SERIES OF DECISIONS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME IS AVAILABLE TO CREDIT CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT O F THE SAID DECISION READS AS UNDER : 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHIVNERI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. (S UPRA). THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ANOTHER ORDER OF THE PUNE BENCH DATED 19 - 08 - 2015 IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. ITO (ITA NO.604/PN/2014) (TO WHICH ONE OF US, NAMELY, THE LD. JM IS PARTY) IN WHICH SIMILAR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED THE CONTRARY VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA C REDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ITO (2015) 230 TAXMANN 309 (KAR.) ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P ON INTEREST INCOME AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 110 DTR 89 (DELHI) NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P ON INTEREST INCOME, EARNED FROM BANKS UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. BOTH THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. 322 ITR 283 (SC). THERE BEING NO DIRECT JUDGMENT FRO M THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE POINT, THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT 7 ITA NO . 893/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012 - 13 (SUPRA) PREFERRED TO GO WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUMKUR ME RCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR BEING ANY CHANGE IN THE LEGAL POSITION PREVAILING ON THIS ISSUE AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MAR YADIT (SUPRA) AND HOST OF OTHER ORDERS REITERATING THE SIMILAR VIEW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80P ON THE INTEREST INCOME. 7. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DECISIONS DISCUSSE D ABOVE, THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 . SD/ - ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 29 TH JANUARY, 2019 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 9, PUNE 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PUNE 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE