JANPRIYA SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NAVI MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27 1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

MA 120/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Janpriya Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society, which filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order. The Tribunal had previously denied the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income from fixed deposits, asserting that this income was not from business operations. The assessee argued that this was a mistake apparent on record, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Tribunal maintained that the interest income was 'derived' from investments and should be considered under a different subsection, Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal dismissed the application, categorizing it as a review, which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786499 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. Assessing Officer, CIT v Reliance Telecom Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAGIRATH RAMAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHANT ALME

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA No.120/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 6516/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Janpriya Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Shivneri Apartment E- 1/14/B-3, Sector 08, Nerul, Navi Mumbai - 400706 PAN: AACAJ7353G Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27 1 3rd Floor Tower No 6 Vashi Railway Station Maharashtra-400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sushant Alme Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 03.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.11.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee arising out of order passed by this Tribunal in above referred appeals vide order dated 28/02/2025: Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.120/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Janpriya Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2. The assessee filed present miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the Tribunal’s order. The assessee argues that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. Assessing Officer reported in (2023) 154 taxman.com 305. The Ld.AR submitted that, on one hand this Tribunal held that assessee qualify as cooperative societies u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i)on the other hand, denied deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i), by holding that the interest income wasn’t from business operations. The Ld.AR submitted that, this constitute mistake apparent on record, warranting recall of the order. 2.1. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the observation of this Tribunal. We have perused the submission advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us 3. Benefit of Section 80P (2)(a)(i) if available to the assessee in respect of activities that the assessee is engaged in as enumerated in the sub clause (i). It is noted that the Ld.AR failed to appreciate that in the present fact interest from fixed deposit is not the primary activity of the assessee which is an admitted fact. It is a fact that, the assessee has to invest in F. D. as per the norms under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Ltd. Therefore, any interest received by the assessee in this scenario is “derived” from such investment. 3.1. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by this Tribunal as the deduction in respect of such interest, Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.120/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Janpriya Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit dividend earned by the assessee from these type of investment has to be considered u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3.2 The request by the assessee in present miscellaneous petition therefore amounts to review and not rectification, which is beyond the scope of sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. We place reliance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v Reliance Telecom Ltd( 2021)133 taxman.com 41. In the result miscellaneous application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 20/11/2025 Poonam Mirashi Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "