2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 10083
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SOVEREIGN CO-OP HSG SOC LTD MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER - 41(1)(5) MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 1661/MUM/2026[2020-2021]
##PAGE1##
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1661/Mum/2026
(Assessment year: 2020-21)
Sovereign Co-Op HSG Soc. vs ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai
Ltd. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai
Incorp Advisory Services P.
Ltd., 2nd Floor Geeta Building,
Sion Circle, Next to HP Petrol
Pump, Sion (East),Mumbai-
400022
PAN:AABAP6171B
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Margav Shukla
Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (SR.DR)
Date of hearing : 15/04/2026
Date of pronouncement : 21/04/2026
O R D E R
Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi
[for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax
Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2020-21, date of order
19.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment
##PAGE2##2
ITA No.1661/Mum/2026
Sovereign Co-Op Soc. Ltd.
Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section
143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 09.09.2022.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society and
registered under the relevant Cooperative Societies Act. For the impugned
assessment year the assessee filed the return by declaring total income
Rs.1,76,600, after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA amounting to
Rs.25,31,987/-. The Ld. AO had selected the assessee’s case for scrutiny and
issued the notice u/sec. 143(2) of the Act. During assessment proceeding the Ld.
AO found that the assessee had claimed the deduction amount of Rs.24,81,987/-
u/sec. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest received from the investment from
Cooperative Banks and also the assessee claimed standard deduction of
Rs.50,000/- u/sec. 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim
and made the addition amount of Rs.25,77,239/- after treating the income from
other sources. Being aggrieved assesse filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The
CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s appeal. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal
before us.
3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising page 1 to 124 which
has been placed on record. Related to argument for claiming deduction u/sec
80P(2)(d), the Ld. AO contended that the assessee had earned interest from
investment from Cooperative Bank. The identical issue was adjudicated by the Ld.
CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18 and passed the appellate order dated 10.11.2025. In AY
2017-18 the Ld. CIT(A) had recognized the assessee’s claim of deduction u/sec
80P(2)(d) as a result the assessee’s appeal was allowed related to this ground. So,
the Ld. AR prayed for allowing the appeal of the assessee related to same interest
earned from same investment in this impugned assessment year.
##PAGE3##3
ITA No.1661/Mum/2026
Sovereign Co-Op Soc. Ltd.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently argued and stated that in section
80P(4) is restricted to deduction of interest from co-operative banks under
section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Section 80P(4) does not permit the deduction of
interest of co-operative banks. The Ld.DR fully relied on the orders of the revenue
authorities.
5. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on
record. The only issue as agitated by the assessee society related to interest and
dividend from co-operative banks which is claimed as deduction under section
80P(2)(d) of the Act. Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the
identical issue for AY 2017-18 in assessee’s own appeal and allowed the claim of
deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Whereas in the instant case, the assessee has received
interest only from Co operative Banks. Section 80P(2)(d) provides for deduction of
interest received by a Co-operative Society from another Co-operative Society. A
Co-operative Society being a Co-operative Society fits into the permissible
provisions of the deductions. Thus the case referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in his
judgment is not applicable or relatable to the