IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6453/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2013-2014)

&

ITA No.6452/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2014-2015)

Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.

Navratan, 69, P. D’Mello Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400009.Maharashtra.

[PAN:AAAJB0706E] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer - 17(1)(3), Mumbai Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Vijay Joshi For the Respondent/Department : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date Conclusion of hearing : 01.12.2025 Pronouncement of order : 09.12.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. These are two appeals preferred by the same Assessee involving identical issues. The appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of common order.

ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ITA No.6453/Mum/2025

2. We would first take up appeal preferred by the Assessee directed against the Order, dated 11/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Rs.24,08,874/- in respect of income earned by the Appellant from deposit kept with co-operative bank in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act for an amount of INR.1,12,94,196/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2016. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of INR.88,85,322/- claimed by the Assessing Officer under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and INR.24,08,874/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d)

of the Act.

5. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A), which was disposed off as partly allowed vide Order, dated 11/08/2025. The Learned CIT(A) accepted Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of INR.88,85,322/- made by the Assessing Officer. However, the disallowance of INR.24,08,874/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allowed deduction for administrative and other expenses incurred by the Assessee for earning interest income of INR.24,08,874/- from co-operative banks.

6. Therefore, being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph

2 above.

7. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 [ITA No.3583/Mum/2014, order dated 27/10/2020]. The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the Assessee vide Order, dated 27/10/2020 and allowed identical claim of deduction made by the Assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, it was contended that the issue raised in the present appeal was squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o