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. 1287/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Poonam Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(1) Society Ltd. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 1^st Floor, Navkar Poonam, 45, Mumbai – 400058.

Lallubhai Park Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400058.

PAN NO. AAAAP6170H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Ketki Mitta Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR)

Date of Hearing : 06/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 20/04/2026

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

24.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, raising following grounds of appeal:

“GROUND NO. I: WRONG DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION

80P(2)(d)

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred In law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction of 24,64,426/- claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest income earned by the appellant from Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited;

GROUND NO. 2: ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION O SECTION 80P(2)(d):

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding that a Co-operative Bank is not a Co-operative Society for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d), Ignoring the fact that:

(a) Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and(b) Section BOP(2)(d) does not exclude co-operative banks, unlike Section 80P(4), which applies only to the assessee being a Co-operative Bank;

GROUND NO. 3: MISAPPLICATION OF SECTION 80P(4):

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred In Law in invoking Section 80P(4) in the case of the Appellant, which is a Co- operative Housing Society and not a Co-operative Bank, whereas Section 80P(4) restricts deduction only in the case of assessee which r Co-

operative Banks.

GROUND NO.4: IGNORING BINDING JURISDICTIONAL PRECEDENTS:

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law by ignoring binding decisions of the Honourable Bombay High Court and the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein it has been consistently held that interest earned by a Co-operative Society from deposits with a Co-operative Bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d);

GROUND NO.5: RELIANCE ON INAPPLICABLE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance on the decisions in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Limited (Reported in 322 ITR 283 Page) and subsequent Karnataka High Court rulings, which:

(a) Concern Section 80P(2)(a) and (b) Deal with business income v/s. income from other sources and are therefore inapplicable to deduction claimed under Section

80P(2)(d)GROUND NO. 6:

INCORRECT APPLICATION OF MUTUALITY PRINCIPLE:

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in Invoking the principle of mutuality, which is irrelevant while examining deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as the said provision grants a statutory deduction independent of mutuality.

GROUND NO. 7: FAILURE TO APPRECIATE LEGISLATIVE INTENT:

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that:-

(a) when the Legislature intended to exclude co-operative Banks, it did so specifically in Section 80P(4)

(b) No such exclusion exists in Section 80P(2)(d), and (c) Reading such exclusion amounts to supplying words to the statute, which is impermissible in law.

GROUND NO. 8:

VIOLATION OF SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION:

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adopting a restrictive Interpretation of a beneficial provision, contrary to settled law that deduction provisions for co-operative societies must be liberally construed.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Housing Society