Baroda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Co-operative Bank Is Still a Co-operative Society: Ahmedabad ITAT Allows ₹68.33 Lakh Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d)
Summary:
The assessee, Baroda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, earned interest income of ₹68,33,529 from investments or deposits maintained with Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited. It claimed deduction of the entire interest income u/s 80P(2)(d), which permits a co-operative society to deduct interest or dividend income derived from investments made with another co-operative society.
The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank was functioning as a full-fledged bank providing banking facilities to the general public. According to the AO, it was a co-operative bank and not a co-operative society for the purposes of Section 80P(2)(d).
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance by relying principally upon PCIT v. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka), the Supreme Court decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283, and State Bank of India v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Gujarat).
The assessee’s appeal had initially been disposed of by the Tribunal on 8 July 2025. However, on a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, the earlier order was recalled on 29 June 2026 for the limited purpose of reconsidering the claim under Section 80P(2)(d).
Issue before the Tribunal
The question was whether interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), or whether the deduction is barred by Section 80P(4) because the entity paying the interest is a co-operative bank.
Rival contentions
The Revenue contended that Section 80P(4) excludes co-operative banks from the benefit of Section 80P. Therefore, interest earned from a co-operative bank could not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Reliance was placed on the Karnataka High Court’s decision reported in 395 ITR 611, which had denied deduction on interest received from a co-operative bank.
The assessee argued that Section 80P(4) merely prevents a co-operative bank from claiming deduction on its own income. It does not provide that a co-operative bank ceases to be a co-operative society. Consequently, another co-operative society investing its funds with such a bank remains entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The assessee relied upon the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in PCIT v. Ashwinkumar Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. (2024) 168 taxmann.com 314, which had accepted this distinction.
Tribunal’s findings and legal reasoning
The Tribunal examined the language of Section 80P(2)(d), which allows deduction of the whole of any interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments made with “any other co-operative society.” The provision does not exclude a co-operative society merely because it also carries on banking business.
Section 80P(4), introduced by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1 April 2007, was intended to place co-operative banks on par with other commercial banks. It denies Section 80P deduction to a co-operative bank, except a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. However, it does not deny deduction to an independent co-operative society earning interest from investments made with a co-operative bank.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the Gujarat High Court decision in State Bank of India v. CIT. In that case, the assessee had invested surplus funds with the State Bank of India, which was not a co-operative society, and claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Gujarat High Court rejected that claim because the interest was not attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members.
Significantly, the Gujarat High Court had itself observed that the assessee could have deposited its surplus funds with a co-operative bank and claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the decision supported rather than defeated the present assessee’s claim.
The Tribunal similarly distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. The Supreme Court was concerned with deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest from surplus funds. It was not examining a claim under Section 80P(2)(d) arising from an investment with another co-operative society. Hence, that decision could not be applied automatically to deny the present claim.
The Tribunal also noticed conflicting Karnataka High Court decisions. In the decision reported in 392 ITR 74, the Karnataka High Court held that a co-operative bank is a species of the genus “co-operative society” and that interest received from it qualifies for deduction. However, in the later decision reported in 395 ITR 611, a contrary view was taken.
The controversy was nevertheless settled, so far as the Ahmedabad Tribunal was concerned, by the binding Gujarat High Court decision in Ashwinkumar Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. The Gujarat High Court had held that Section 80P(4) applies when a co-operative bank seeks deduction for its own income. It does not alter the bank’s status as a co-operative society or prevent another society from claiming deduction on interest earned from it.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that interest of ₹68,33,529 earned from Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank was fully deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance was deleted and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
Practical implications
The ruling benefits co-operative societies that keep surplus or statutory funds with co-operative banks. It clarifies that the disqualification imposed on a co-operative bank under Section 80P(4) cannot be transferred to the investing co-operative society.
Assessees should nevertheless retain the investee bank’s registration details, deposit confirmations and interest certificates to establish that it is legally constituted as a co-operative society. Interest earned from an ordinary commercial bank may not qualify under Section 80P(2)(d).
The essential principle is that a co-operative bank may be denied its own deduction under Section 80P(4), but it does not cease to be a co-operative society for the investor’s claim under Section 80P(2)(d).
Cases Discussed
- PCIT v. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka)
- Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC)
- State Bank of India v. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Gujarat)
- PCIT v. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karnataka)
- PCIT v. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. (2024) 168 taxmann.com 314 (Gujarat)
- ACIT v. The Sardar Patel Coop. Credit Soc. Ltd., ITA No. 1404/Ahd/2019, AY 2016-17, order dated 20.05.2022
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal, which pertains to Asst. Year 2022-23, was disposed of by the order dated 08-07-2025. Subsequently, the Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the said order in M.A. No. 138/Ahd/2025 on the ground that the ITAT had not dealt with the Revenue’s objection to allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the correct perspective. After considering the Revenue’s contention in the said Miscellaneous Application, the ITAT vide order dated 29/06/2026 recalled the order for re-adjudication and thus the matter is before us.
2. The issue for consideration at this stage pertains only to the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee had claimed the said deduction in respect of interest income amounting to Rs.68,33,529/-. The assessing officer disallowed this interest of Rs.68,33,529/- received from Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited on the ground that the said bank was a Co-operative Bank and not a Co-operative Society. The Assessing Officer held that the said Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank was working as a full-fledged bank and providing banking facilities to general public. On this ground alone, this claim for deduction of interest was disallowed.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance made by the assessing officer following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Soceity Ltd. reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the same assessee reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578, to support the proposition that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had taken a view that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) would not be available in respect of interest earned from Co-operative Bank.
4. In the course of hearing of the recall matter, the Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Amit Pratap Singh placed strong reliance on the decision of the lower authorities and contended that in view of Section 80P(4) of the Act deduction would not be available to Co-operative Society in respect of interest earned from Co-operative Bank. The Ld. Sr. D.R. also placed reliance, as did the CIT(A), on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 611 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society vs. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) to advance the proposition that in view of section 80P(4) of the Act, deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was not available to the interest earned by a Co-operative Society from as Co-operative Bank.
5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. Shri Rushin Patel appearing for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. [2024] 168 taxmann.com 314 (Guj.) and contended that Section 80P(4) was a provision introduced to ensure that the benefit of deduction under this section would not be available to a Co-operative Bank other than a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. This sub-section does seeks to deny benefit of deduction u/s 80P to a co-operative bank, but not deny deduction of interest receipt by a Co-operative Society from another Co-operative Society (including a co-operative bank) as specified in Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the judgments cited and the statutory provision. After examining the facts of the assessment and the appellate order the uncontroverted facts are; (i) the assessee is cooperative credit society, (ii) the assessee has earned interest income from a cooperative bank which was claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The plain reading of the language of Section 80P(2)(d) reveals that any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the cooperative society from its investment with any cooperative society will be wholly admissible as deduction u/s 80P(1). Sub-section (4) of Section 80P provides that the “the provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any cooperative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or primary cooperative agricultural and Rural Development Bank of India”. This provision was introduced by Finance Bill 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to deny deduction u/s 80P to any cooperative bank other than the exceptions provided therein. As per Memorandum explaining provisions of the Finance Bill, it was clarified that this provision was introduced to bring parity of the cooperative bank with other banks. This provisions cannot be interpreted to mean that the deduction u/s 80P, otherwise admissible to a cooperative society under sub-section (2)(d), will be denied merely because the interest is earned from a cooperative bank.
7. Before coming to our conclusion, it is imperative to deal with the judicial precedents cited by both the parties. At the outset, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly applied the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT: [2016] 389 ITR 578 (Gujarat). In this case the appellant a co-operative society, had invested its surplus funds with the State Bank of India and claimed that the interest income would be deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i). No deduction was claimed by the appellant under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On these fact, Hon’ble High Court concluded that the appellant could have deposited surplus funds in a co-operative bank and claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). But having deposited funds in the State Bank of India, the assessee could not claim benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i). Relevant extracts of the said judgment are as under:
“14. Thus, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society (supra), in case of a society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, income from investments made in banks does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However, section 80P(2)(d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from funds invested in co-operative societies. Therefore, to the extent of the interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
…………………………
16. In case where the co-operative society is a bank, one of its objects would be to carry on the general business of banking. Like other banks, money would be its stock-in-trade or circulating capital and its normal business is to deal in money and credit. The business of such a bank does not consist only of receiving deposits and lending money to its members or such other societies as are mentioned in the objects. When such a society lends out its monies so that they may be readily available to meet the demands of its depositors if and when they arise, it is a legitimate mode of carrying on its banking business. In case of a credit society like the present one, the business of the society is limited to providing credit to its members and the income that is earned from providing such credit facilities to its members is deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, investing its surplus funds with the State Bank of India is no part of the business of the appellant of providing credit to its members and hence, it cannot be said that the interest income derived from depositing surplus funds with the State Bank of India is profits and gains of business attributable to the activities of the appellant society. The character of the interest is different from the income attributable to the business of the society of providing credit facilities to its members. The interest income derived from investing surplus funds with the State Bank of India must be closely linked with the business of providing credit facilities for it to be held that it is attributable to the business of the assessee. Therefore, the profits and gains can be said to be directly attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members if there is a direct and proximate connection between the profits gains and the business of the appellant. In the present case there is no obligation upon the appellant to invest its surplus funds with the State Bank of India. Investing surplus funds in a bank is no part of the business of the assessee of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, it is only the interest derived from the credit provided to its members which is deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the interest derived by depositing surplus funds with the State Bank of India not being attributable to the business carried on by the appellant, cannot be deducted under section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Act. If the appellant wants to avail of the benefit of deduction of such interest income, it is always open for it to deposit the surplus funds with a co-operative bank and avail of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
17. Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 permits a society to invest or deposit its fund in the State Bank of India. Therefore, while investment in the State Bank of India is permissible under section 71 of that Act, there is no statutory obligation cast upon the appellant to deposit funds as a part of its business. The said provision also permits investment of funds in any co-operative bank or any banking company approved for this purpose by the Registrar on such conditions as the Registrar may from time to time impose. However, insofar as the provisions of the Income Tax Act are concerned, under section 80P(2)(d) thereof, it is only the income by way of interest or dividends derived by a co operative society from its investments with any other co operative society which is required to be deducted while computing the total income of the assessee.
………………………..
22. In the light of the above discussion, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The questions are accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. It is accordingly held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding invocation of powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also justified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/-respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Sale Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO: [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) as also the Karnataka High Court in the same case, 322 ITR 272 (which was affirmed by the Supreme Court) were seized of the following question of law:
“(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that interest received by the assessee from securities and deposits in bank is not attributable to the amount of profits and gains of the business and therefore, does not qualify for exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Act and as assessed under s. 56 of the Act is contrary to law and calls for interference in this appeal ?”
8.1. The assessee in this case had made investments on securities Kisan Vikas Patra and Bonds and also deposits in banks. The income from that investments/deposits was claimed deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on the ground that this was business income of the assessee and the whole of such income was deductible under that provision. There was no claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of any interest from a co-operative bank. On these facts, the Hon’ble High Court and the Supreme Court both held that this income was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
9. In a later case of the same assessee, PCIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.: [2017] 392 ITR 74 (Karnataka), the Karnataka High Court examined whether for purposes of section 80P(2)(d) a co-operative bank should be considered a co-operative society. Affirming that it should be, the Hon’ble High Court held as under:
“7. However, the contention being taken by the learned counsel is untenable. For the issue that was before the ITAT, was a limited one, namely whether for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, a Co-operative Bank should be considered as a Co-operative Society or not? For, if a Co-operative Bank is considered to be a Co-operative Society, then any interest earned by the Co-operative Society from a Co-operative Bank would necessarily be deductible under Section 80P(1) of the Act.
8. The issue whether a Co-operative Bank is considered to be a Co-operative Society is no longer res integra. For the said issue has been decided by the ITAT itself in different cases. Moreover the word “Co-operative Society” are the words of a large extent, and denotes a genus, whereas the word “Co-operative Bank” is a word of limited extent, which merely demarcates and identifies a particular species of the genus Co-operative Societies. Co-Operative Society can be of different nature, and can be involved in different activities; the Co-operative Society Bank is merely a variety of the Co-operative Societies. Thus the Co-operative Bank which is a species of the genus would necessarily be covered by the word “Co-operative Society”.
9. Furthermore, even according to Section 56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary Co-Operative Society bank as the meaning of Co-Operative Society. Therefore, a Co-operative Society Bank would be included in the words ‘Co-operative Society’.
10. Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co-operative Society Bank. Therefore, according to Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, the said amount of interest earned from a Co-operative Society Bank would be deductable from the gross income of the Co-operative Society in order to assess its total income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the said deduction to the assessee respondent.
11. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283/188 Taxman 282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act and not Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. Thus, neither of the two substantial questions of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue even arise in the present case.”
10. Admittedly, the Karnataka High Court, in another case of the same assessee, reported as PCIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Society [2017 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka), took a different view and the CIT(A) has relied on this decision in the impugned order. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12 wherein the assessee had shifted its investments to a co-operative bank and sought deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as against the earlier claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Hon’ble High Court concluded that since section 80P(2)(d) refers only to a co-operative society and not to a cooperative bank, interest earned from a co-operative bank could not be held eligible for deduction u/s80P(2)(d) r.w.s. 80P(4) of the Act. After examining the earlier decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the same assessee, reported in 392 ITR 74, the Hon’ble High Court distinguished the same in the following words:
“18. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that a co-ordinate bench of this Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals by referring, but not applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we observe with greatest respects that we do not find any detailed discussion of the facts and law pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the respondent assessee in the said order passed by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, we are unable to follow the same in the face of the binding precedent laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We find in paragraph 8 of the said order passed by a co- ordinate bench that the learned Judges have observed that “the issue whether a co-operative bank is considered to be a co- operative society is no longer res integra, for the said issue has been decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal itself in different cases…………..”. No other binding precedent was discussed in the said judgment. Of course, the Bench has observed that a Co-operative Bank is a specie of the genus co- operative Society, with which we agree, but as far as applicability of Section 80P(2) of the Act is concerned, the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision cannot be restricted only if the income was to fall under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
19. In our opinion, it would not make a difference, whether the interest income is earned from investments/deposits made in a Scheduled Bank or in a Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the said decision of the Co- ordinate Bench is distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present appeals, in view of the binding precedent from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
11. The assessee has relied upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. The Sardar Patel Coop. Credit Soc. Ltd. in ITA No. 1404/Ahd/2019 in respect of A.Y. 2016-17 vide order dated 20.05.2022. The assessee in that case was held eligible for deduction/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest earned by the assessee on surplus held with cooperative banks. In the aforesaid decision this Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.). The Hon’ble High Court had held in that case that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investment held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
12. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) considered all the case laws relevant for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(4) while examining the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) for interest earned by a Co-operative Society from a Co-operative Bank, and accepted the assessee’s contention that the provision of Section 80P(2)(d) would be applicable to the interest earned by the assessee from a Co-operative Bank. The Hon’ble High Court held as under:
“28. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the controversy arising in these tax appeals , we are o f the opinion that the controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is no more re s integra in view o f the decision o f this Court in case o f Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sara fi Mandali Ltd . (supra) as well as in case of State Bank o f India (supra) wherein it was held that the deduction of under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is available to the cooperative societies on the income earned as interest on the investment made with the cooperative bank which in turn , is a cooperative society itself.
29 . Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the revenue on decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars’ Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court appears to have taken into consideration the amendment in section 194A(3)(v) o f the Act wherein the cooperative bank is excluded from the applicability o f tax to be deducted at source . However , it appears that the interpretation made by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court to the effect that the cooperative banks have been excluded from the definition of the cooperative societies by Finance Act,2015 by amending section 194A(3)(v) of the Act is concerned, on perusal o f section 194A (3) of the Act , it appears that it provides for exemption from deducting Tax Deducted at Source [‘TDS’ for short] from the income on interest other than interest on securities as the cooperative societies other than cooperative banks meaning thereby that the cooperative banks are liable to deduct TDS from the interest other than interest on securities . There fore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment .
30 . Moreover , as reliance placed on the a foresaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept as section 80P(4) of the Act would be applicable to the cooperative bank when the cooperative bank is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act and in such eventuality , the provision of section 80P would not be applicable as per the amendment o f sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act. Therefore, the exclusion o f applicability of section 80P to cooperative banks by section 80P (4) of the Act would no t disentitle the respondent-assessee from claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in absence o f any amendment in the said section and that would not be sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent-assessee for deduction of interest earned from investment made in a cooperative bank which is also a cooperative society from the total income .”
13. The aforesaid judicial precedents reveal that whereas there is an apparent difference of opinion in the decisions of the Karnataka High Court on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Sale Co-operative Society Ltd., the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court have expressed a consistent view. In view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the interest earned by the assessee from Baroda District Co-operative Central Bank would be available as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and Section 80P(4) does not come as a bar in the course of claiming this deduction. The assessee’s appeal is allowed on this ground and disallowance of Rs.68, 33,529/- is deleted.
14. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
This Order is pronounced on 25/08/2026
