IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Mumbai Mint Income Tax Officer-

Employees’ Co-Operative 17(2)(4), Credit Society Ltd., Room No.112, 1^st Floor, Vs.

I.G. Mint, S.B. Road, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 C-41 to C-43, G Block, PAN: AAAAT8304P Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400061 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ld. A.R.

Revenue by : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R.

Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025

O R D E R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-

18.

2. In this case, the Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act to tune of Rs.17,05,275/- being income earned from co- operative banks, by filing return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring income as Rs. “Nil”. The AO vide assessment order dated 15.12.2019, disallowed the said deduction claimed by holding that benefit on the amount of Rs.17,05,275/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P2(d)

of the Act cannot be given. Therefore, the deduction claimed is rejected and not allowed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

3. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order rejected the claim of the assessee and affirmed the addition made by AO on account of interest of Rs.17,05,275/- mainly by following judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society 83 taxmann.com 140.

4. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred this appeal and at the outset controverted the findings of the authorities below by emphasizing that both the authorities have interpreted the provisions of law in wrong way. Further, the issue qua deduction claimed u/s 80P2(d) of the Act on account of interest income earned from co-operative banks has already been set to rest, by various courts in favour of the Assessee.

5. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the assessee and relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.

6. Heard the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and orders passed by the Authorities below. This court observe that issue qua deduction claimed u/s 80P2(d) of the Act on account of interest income earned from co- operative banks, has been dealt with by various courts including the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pathare Prabhu Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1346 & 1347/M/2023 decided on 27.07.2023) (2023) 153 taxmann.com 714 (Mum. – Trib.) wherein the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by considering the relevant provisions of law and the judgments as relied upon by the authorities below in the instant case, such as Pr. CIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn.) and Pr. CIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn.) and following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetables Products Ltd. (1972) 88 ITR 192, allowed the identical deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act on account of interest income earned from investment with co-operative bank, by observing and holding as under:

“8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The only dispute raised by the Assessee is against the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income received from the Co-operative Banks. The Assessee is a registered Co-operative Housing Society and during the assessment year 2018-19 earned interest income of Rs. 50,39,861 from the investments made in various Co-operative Banks.

9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 80P of the Act under which the Assessee has claimed the deduc