The Assessing Officer has taxed our society's bank FD interest as income from other sources and refused to allow the maintenance expenditure against it. Is there an answer?
On these facts, yes - but read what the Tribunal actually did before relying on it. The Ahmedabad Bench held that a co-operative housing service society's fixed deposit interest was directly linked to the activity of maintaining the society, so the receipts had to be set against the maintenance expenditure they funded rather than taxed gross. The addition of Rs 24,31,919 on the fixed deposit interest was deleted, and the rent and other small receipts were treated the same way, leaving the net surplus of Rs 4,64,486 that the society had itself shown. The Tribunal then directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs 50,000 claimed under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). The reasoning ran through the principle of mutuality as stated by the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society, and it did not deal with the Secunderabad Club decision on which the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied.
Decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad - T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member and Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member) on 2024-08-07, reported as [2024] 209 ITD 229 (Ahmedabad - Trib.); IT Appeal No. 1039 (Ahd.) of 2023 (assessment year 2018-19). It bears on section 80P(2)(c)(ii), section 56, section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Co-operative Societies and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
Two different arguments are running here and they should not be confused. The first is netting: if the receipts are what pay for the maintenance, taxing them gross while disallowing the expenditure under section 57 produces a figure that does not exist. The Tribunal accepted that the interest was directly linked with the maintenance activity, which is a fact-specific finding about how the society's money actually moved. The second is mutuality, which is a much larger claim: that a society whose contributors and beneficiaries are the same people has no taxable income from its dealings with them at all. The order leans on Venkatesh Premises for that. What it does not do is engage with Secunderabad Club, where the Supreme Court held interest on deposits placed with banks that are not members to be outside mutuality and taxable. That was the very authority the Commissioner (Appeals) had used, and an order that allows an appeal without distinguishing the authority relied on below is a weak thing to cite. The deduction the Tribunal directed is also modest - the Rs 50,000 flat allowance in section 80P(2)(c)(ii) - not relief on the whole surplus.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a registered co-operative housing service society that maintains a residential apartment complex for its members. For assessment year 2018-19 it filed a nil return. The Assessing Officer added Rs 24,71,127 - made up of Rs 24,31,919 of interest on fixed deposits, Rs 35,041 of rent and Rs 4,167 of interest on an income-tax refund - treating the receipts as income from other sources and declining to allow the maintenance expenditure against them under section 57. The society's own accounts showed a net surplus of Rs 4,64,486 after the maintenance expenditure, and it had claimed the deduction of Rs 50,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Secunderabad Club and rejecting the claim based on mutuality.
The appeal was partly allowed. The interest on the fixed deposits was found to be directly linked with the society's maintenance activity - the money was spent on electrical work, lift maintenance, plumbing repairs and security, and it reduced what the members had to contribute - so the society had rightly set the interest off against its expenditure and the addition of Rs 24,31,919 was deleted. The rent and the other receipts were dealt with on the same footing. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the Rs 50,000 deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal treated the question as one about what the receipts were for rather than about the label under which they arrived. The deposits existed to fund the maintenance the society was formed to carry out, and the interest they produced went to the same purpose, so the Commissioner (Appeals)'s use of section 57 to confine deductions to expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of earning the interest was the wrong test. Behind that lay the doctrine of mutuality as the Supreme Court stated it in Income-tax Officer v. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.: where the contributors to a common fund and the participators in the surplus are the same persons, the surplus is not income, and funds held in common are applied to the common purpose. Once the receipts had been netted against the maintenance expenditure, what remained was the surplus of Rs 4,64,486 the society had itself returned, against which the flat deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii) was allowed.
The interest income earned from fixed deposits is directly linked with the activity of maintenance of the Society.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOn these facts, yes - but read what the Tribunal actually did before relying on it. The Ahmedabad Bench held that a co-operative housing service society's fixed deposit interest was directly linked to the activity of maintaining the society, so the receipts had to be set against the maintenance expenditure they funded rather than taxed gross. The addition of Rs 24,31,919 on the fixed deposit interest was deleted, and the rent and other small receipts were treated the same way, leaving the net surplus of Rs 4,64,486 that the society had itself shown. The Tribunal then directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs 50,000 claimed under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). The reasoning ran through the principle of mutuality as stated by the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society, and it did not deal with the Secunderabad Club decision on which the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied. This was decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad - T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member and Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member) and bears on section 80P(2)(c)(ii), section 56, section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2024] 209 ITD 229 (Ahmedabad - Trib.); IT Appeal No. 1039 (Ahd.) of 2023 (assessment year 2018-19). Two different arguments are running here and they should not be confused. The first is netting: if the receipts are what pay for the maintenance, taxing them gross while disallowing the expenditure under section 57 produces a figure that does not exist. The Tribunal accepted that the interest was directly linked with the maintenance activity, which is a fact-specific finding about how the society's money actually moved. The second is mutuality, which is a much larger claim: that a society whose contributors and beneficiaries are the same people has no taxable income from its dealings with them at all. The order leans on Venkatesh Premises for that. What it does not do is engage with Secunderabad Club, where the Supreme Court held interest on deposits placed with banks that are not members to be outside mutuality and taxable. That was the very authority the Commissioner (Appeals) had used, and an order that allows an appeal without distinguishing the authority relied on below is a weak thing to cite. The deduction the Tribunal directed is also modest - the Rs 50,000 flat allowance in section 80P(2)(c)(ii) - not relief on the whole surplus. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Show the link between the receipts and the expenditure in the accounts: which deposits, which maintenance heads they funded, and how member contributions were reduced as a result. The finding here was factual.
The assessee is a registered co-operative housing service society that maintains a residential apartment complex for its members. For assessment year 2018-19 it filed a nil return. The Assessing Officer added Rs 24,71,127 - made up of Rs 24,31,919 of interest on fixed deposits, Rs 35,041 of rent and Rs 4,167 of interest on an income-tax refund - treating the receipts as income from other sources and declining to allow the maintenance expenditure against them under section 57. The society's own accounts showed a net surplus of Rs 4,64,486 after the maintenance expenditure, and it had claimed the deduction of Rs 50,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Secunderabad Club and rejecting the claim based on mutuality. The matter was decided on 2024-08-07 by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad - T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member and Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was partly allowed. The interest on the fixed deposits was found to be directly linked with the society's maintenance activity - the money was spent on electrical work, lift maintenance, plumbing repairs and security, and it reduced what the members had to contribute - so the society had rightly set the interest off against its expenditure and the addition of Rs 24,31,919 was deleted. The rent and the other receipts were dealt with on the same footing. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the Rs 50,000 deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal treated the question as one about what the receipts were for rather than about the label under which they arrived. The deposits existed to fund the maintenance the society was formed to carry out, and the interest they produced went to the same purpose, so the Commissioner (Appeals)'s use of section 57 to confine deductions to expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of earning the interest was the wrong test. Behind that lay the doctrine of mutuality as the Supreme Court stated it in Income-tax Officer v. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.: where the contributors to a common fund and the participators in the surplus are the same persons, the surplus is not income, and funds held in common are applied to the common purpose. Once the receipts had been netted against the maintenance expenditure, what remained was the surplus of Rs 4,64,486 the society had itself returned, against which the flat deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii) was allowed. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The interest income earned from fixed deposits is directly linked with the activity of maintenance of the Society."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2024-08-07 and is reported as [2024] 209 ITD 229 (Ahmedabad - Trib.); IT Appeal No. 1039 (Ahd.) of 2023 (assessment year 2018-19). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 80P(2)(c)(ii), section 56, section 57, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was partly allowed. The interest on the fixed deposits was found to be directly linked with the society's maintenance activity - the money was spent on electrical work, lift maintenance, plumbing repairs and security, and it reduced what the members had to contribute - so the society had rightly set the interest off against its expenditure and the addition of Rs 24,31,919 was deleted. The rent and the other receipts were dealt with on the same footing. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the Rs 50,000 deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii). It arises in Co-operative Societies and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 80P(2)(c)(ii), section 56, section 57 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad - T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member and Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Claim the netting and the s.80P(2)(c)(ii) deduction as separate things - the deduction is a flat Rs 50,000 for a society that is not a consumers' co-operative, and it sits on the surplus after netting. Do not lift this order as a settled answer on bank interest. Deal with Secunderabad Club head on, because the Tribunal did not. If you are running mutuality, plead the identity of contributors and beneficiaries expressly and support it from the bye-laws, rather than relying on the netting point alone.
Still good law. The citator returns nothing for this doc id, but the order has been applied. In Vidyut Employees Co-operative Housing Society v DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad, ITAT Hyderabad, 27 February 2026, the Bench identified this order at paragraph 11 by its ITA number and date — 'The Venus Parkland Co-Op Housing Service Society Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad in ITA.No.1039/Ahd./2023, Order dated 07.08.2024' — then at paragraph 13.1 set out paragraphs 7 and 7.1 of it on offsetting maintenance expenditure against interest and rental income and on mutuality, and concluded: 'Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the claim of deduction of Rs.3,40,494/- is allowed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue is deleted.' Nothing overruling, doubting or confining it was found. A name search shows Gujarat High Court matters involving Venus Infrastructure and Developers, a different assessee, and no appeal against this order. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order was passed by two members but the bench is described as 'SMC'; that description is reproduced from the order and not explained in it. The Tribunal did not expressly distinguish, follow or otherwise deal with Secunderabad Club, which was the authority the Commissioner (Appeals) rested on - it simply proceeded on Venkatesh Premises. The concluding direction recorded in the order on the deduction is no more than that the Assessing Officer 'is directed to allow the same', referring to the Rs 50,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(ii); the order does not state a revised total income. The ground-by-ground disposal is partly allowed, with one ground dismissed as not pressed. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was partly allowed. The interest on the fixed deposits was found to be directly linked with the society's maintenance activity - the money was spent on electrical work, lift maintenance, plumbing repairs and security, and it reduced what the members had to contribute - so the society had rightly set the interest off against its expenditure and the addition of Rs 24,31,919 was deleted. The rent and the other receipts were dealt with on the same footing. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the Rs 50,000 deduction under section 80P(2)(c)(ii).
TaxSphere, “Venus Parkland Co-Op Housing Service Society Ltd v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/venus-parkland-society-fd-interest-and-80p-2-c-ii/ (validity last checked 2026-09-01)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I borrowed rather than sell my shares, and used the money to pay my income-tax and wealth-tax and to make the compulsory annuity deposit. The interest on that borrowing has been disallowed under s.57(iii). Was that right?
My society invested surplus funds in short-term bank deposits. Is that interest covered by 80P?
My company is still building its plant. It parked the unused part of its term loans in short-term bank deposits. Can I set the interest earned off against the interest I am paying, or must I pay tax on it?
I let a fully furnished, centrally air-conditioned office with a generator on a single lease and claimed the thirty per cent standard deduction under s.24(a). The Assessing Officer has taxed the whole rent as income from other sources. Can I still get some deduction?
