SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 10784

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
CLAREMONT CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3() MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 1785/MUM/2026[2021-22]



##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.1785/Mum/2026

(Assessment year: 2021-22)

Claremont Co Operative vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Mumbai

Housing Society Ltd. Ashar I.T. Park, 6th floor, Road

Claremont CHS Ltd. Eastern No.16Z, Brodma, Neheru Nagar,

Express Highway, Lodha Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane

Luxuria Near Lodha Paradise West-400604

Majiwada Thane West-400601

PAN:AADAC5131A

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Ms. Neha Paranjpe

Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR)

Date of hearing : 16/04/2026

Date of pronouncement : 22/04/2026

O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) ADDL/JCIT-A 2 Visakhapatnam [for brevity

the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for

brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2021-22, date of order 25.08.2025. The

impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax

##PAGE2##

2

ITA No.1785/Mum/2026

Claremont co Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Department, CPC Bengaluru (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section

143(1) of the Act date of order 14.11.2022.

2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay for 112 days

delay. The Chairman of the assessee-trust, Mr. Tejwant Navalkar executed a

notarized affidavit on 19.02.2026 and explained the delay for filing the same. The

Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee.

Accordingly, we find that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal

for 112 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay for filing the appeal before us

and the appeal is taken for adjudication.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Cooperative Housing

Society and filed the return by claiming deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) for the interest

received on fix deposit with Cooperative banks. The Ld. AO has disallowed the

claim of the assessee. The assessee has invested its surplus funds in terms of

deposit with “Saraswat Cooperative Bank” and “Thane District Central

Cooperative Bank”. The gross total income was Rs.17,41,092/- after claiming

deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) amount to Rs.7,83,714/- the taxable income is

calculated amount to Rs.9,57,380/- on which the total income tax with interest

was incurred amount to Rs.3,45,510/- and was paid during the filing of return of

income. The Ld. AO disallowed the claim u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the

Cooperative Bank is not eligible u/sec. 80P(4). The aggrieved assessee filed an

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

##PAGE3##

3

ITA No.1785/Mum/2026

Claremont co Operative Housing Society Ltd.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on

record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed the return of income

declaring a total income after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act.

The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had claimed deduction under

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income amounting to Rs.

7,83,714/-.The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had earned total interest

income of Rs. 7,83,714/- from investments in the cooperative banks named

“Saraswat Cooperative Bank” and “Thane District Central Cooperative Bank”.

5. The Ld. DR, during the course of hearing, contended that the assessee is

not entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of the amount

of Rs. 7,83,714/- for contravening provision u/sec 80P(4) of the Act. The Ld. DR

strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

6. 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) cited various judicial

precedents but the inference drawn in the instan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top