Interest Income of a Credit Society and Deductibility U/S. 80p

Issue for Consideration

Section 80P of the Income-tax Act grants a deduction to an
assessee, being a co-operative society, in respect of such sums that,
inter-alia, includes the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business
attributable to any one or more of such activities which are listed in clauses
(i) to (vii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2). One of the sub-clauses grants a
deduction for a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of
banking or providing credit facilities to its members.

The Courts, in the past, have time and again examined the
true meaning of the term ‘attributable’, and have found the same to be of wider
import in contrast to the term ‘derived from’. Based on such interpretation,
the courts have been inclined to include income from activities incidental to
the main business or activity of the assessee, and have held that such incidental
income too was eligible for deduction, inasmuch as such income was profits and
gains attributable to the business.

In the recent past, the Supreme Court, in the case of Totgars
Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., 322 ITR 283 held that income from interest
on deposits with the bank, earned by a credit society, was to be taxed u/s.56
of the Income-tax Act.

The above mentioned decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale
Society’s case has become a subject matter of controversy leading to
conflicting decisions of the High Courts, whereunder, the Gujarat High Court
followed the said decision, but the Karnataka High Court chose to distinguish
the same on facts, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the said decision to
be applicable only to Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Limited. In fact, the
ratio of the said decision and its applicability has also become debatable.

Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd.’s case

The issue arose in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda
Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer, 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka).
The assessee, a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of section
7 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, was engaged in the
activity of carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its
members. It filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10,
declaring a total income of Rs. NIL, after claiming a deduction of
Rs.42,02,079/- under the provisions of section 80P of the Act in respect of its
business income, which, inter alia, included interest from short term
deposits and savings bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 1,77,305.

The assessing authority denied the deduction claimed u/s. 80P
and passed an order of assessment, determining a total income of
Rs.42,02,079/-, as against the declared income of Rs.NIL. Aggrieved by the said
order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) who held that assessee’s interest income earned from short-term
deposits with Allahabad Bank of Rs. 1,55,300/- and savings bank account with
Axis Bank of Rs.22,005/-, totalling to Rs. 1,77,305/- was liable to income tax,
in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative
Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, 322 ITR 283(SC).

Aggrieved by that part of the order, the assessee preferred
an appeal to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, following the judgment
of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Aggrieved by the said order, the
assessee filed the appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal
raising the following substantial question of law: ‘”Whether the Tribunal
failed in law to appreciate that the interest earned on short-term deposits
were only investments in the course of activity of providing credit facilities
to members and that the same cannot be considered as investment made for the
purpose of earning interest income and consequently passed a perverse
order?”

The assessee, assailing the impugned order, contended before
the Karnataka High Court, that the interest accrued in a sum of Rs. 1,77,305/-
was from the deposits made by the assessee in a nationalised bank out of the
amounts which was used by the assessee for providing credit facilities to its
members, and therefore the said interest amount was attributable to the credit
facilities provided by the assessee, and formed part of profits and gains of
business. It therefore submitted that the appellate authorities were not
justified in denying the said benefit in terms of sub-section (2) of section
80P of the Act. In support of the contention that the interest income was
eligible for deduction u/s. 80P, it relied on several judgments, and pointed
out that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had not laid down any law. In
reply, the Revenue strongly relied on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in
Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), and submitted that the
case before the court was covered by the judgment of the Apex Court and no case
for interference was called for.

The Karnataka High Court, on hearing the facts and the rival
contentions, noted the undisputed facts emerging that the assessee was a
co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members, was not
carrying on any other business and that the interest income earned by the
assessee by providing credit facilities to its members was deposited in the
banks for a short duration, which had earned interest in the sum of Rs.
1,77,305/- . 

Analysing the provisions of section 80P, the court found that
the word ‘attributable’ used in the said section was of great importance. It
took note of the fact that the Apex Court had considered the meaning of the
word ‘attributable’ as opposed to ‘derived from’ in the case of Cambay
Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ,113 ITR 84. The court found
from the above decision that the word “attributable to” was certainly
wider in import than the expression “derived from”, and whenever the
legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning, they had used the expression
“derived from”. The expression, “attributable to”, being of
wider import, was used by the legislature whenever they intended to gather
receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business. 

The court observed that a cooperative society, which was
carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earned
profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities to its members;
the interest income so derived and the capital, if not immediately required to
be lent to the members, could not be kept idle, and the interest income earned
on depositing such balance in hand was to be treated as attributable to the
profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members
only; the society was not carrying on any separate business for earning such
interest income; the income so derived was the amount of profits and gains of
business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or
providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and was
liable to be deducted from the gross total income u/s. 80P of the Act.

The court further observed that the Apex Court in the case of
Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.(supra), on which reliance was
placed, was dealing with a case where the assessee – cooperative society, apart
from providing credit facilities to the members, was also in the business of
marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members and the sale
consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of its members was retained
in many cases, and the said retained amount which was payable to its members
from whom produce was bought, was invested in a short-term deposit/security;
such an amount which was retained by the assessee – society was a liability and
it was shown in the balance sheet on the liability side; therefore, to that
extent, such interest income could not be said to be attributable either to the
activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of
the Act; in the facts of the said case, the Apex Court held that the assessing
officer was right in taxing the interest income u/s. 56 of the Act after making
it clear that they were confining the said judgment to the facts of that case.
It was clear to the Karnataka high court that the Supreme Court in Totgars
Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.(supra) was not laying down any law.

In the instant case, the court noted that the amount which
was invested in banks to earn interest was not an amount due to any members; it
was not the liability; it was not shown as liability in the accounts and that
the amount which was in the nature of profits and gains, was not immediately
required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no
takers. Therefore, they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn
interest. The court accordingly held that the said interest income was
attributable to carrying on the business of banking and was liable to be
deducted in terms of section 80P(1) of the Act. The court cited with approval
the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Andhra
Pradesh State co-operative Bank Ltd.,200 Taxman 220.               

State Bank Of India (SBI)’s case

The issue again arose in the case of State Bank of India
vs. CIT , 74 taxmann.com 64 before the Gujarat high court. The assessee, a
co-operative society, namely State Bank of India Employees Co-op Credit and
Supply Society Ltd. was registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies
Act, 1961 with the object of accepting deposits from salaried persons of the
State Bank of India, Gujarat region, with a view to encourage thrift and
providing credit facility to them. It had launched various deposit schemes such
as Term Deposit, Recurring Deposit, Aid to Your Family Scheme, Members Retiring
Benefit Fund etc., and at the same time, was advancing loans to the
members, such as consumer goods loan, car-vehicle loan, food grain loan and
general purposes loan, etc. It had filed its return of income for
assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11, declaring total income at Rs. Nil, after
claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.29,69,444/- and
Rs.43,64,828/-.respectively.

The matter was taken up in
scrutiny by the Assessing Officer who called for various details, including
justification regarding claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act vide notice
u/s. 142(1). The society submitted its replies, narrating the nature of
activities carried out by it, and details of claim of deduction u/s. 80P with
copy of bye-laws, and the Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s. 143(3) of
the Act accepting the claim.

Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked powers
u/s. 263 of the Act, proposing to revise the above order on the ground that
interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- for assessment year 2009-10 and of
Rs.32,83,410/- from the State Bank of India for assessment year 2010-11 was not
exempt u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In response, the assessee contended that the
interest income was business income, and was exempt u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the
Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not find the explanation satisfactory,
on the ground that interest income was not business income, so as to be exempt
u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, the assessment order was held to be
erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Being aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter in appeal
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that interest income
earned from members on grant of credit did not have nexus with the interest
earned on deposits made with SBI, and could not be said to be the one arising
from business of providing credit facility to its members, by drawing support
from the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sales Society
Ltd. vs. ITO 322 ITR 283(SC) .

The assessee being aggrieved, raised substantial questions of
law in appeal for consideration of the Gujarat High Court, which included ;

‘(1)     Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, ………… ?

(2)      Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in
holding that interest income of Rs……………. on deposits placed with State Bank of
India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

On behalf of the society, it was submitted that the assessee
was a co-operative society formed by the employees of the State Bank of India,
Gujarat Circle, under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 in the
category of Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society for the purpose of
encouragement of savings and providing credit facilities to the members of the
Society; it was not engaged in any other activity except giving credit
facilities to its members, who were employees of State Bank of India, and that
the income generated by the assessee was mainly on account of differential rate
of amount of deposits received from the members and the amount of loans given
to the members; the income generated was only from the contributions received
from the members and it did not deal in any way with any person other than the
members; the employer deducted the contribution from the salary of the
employees and the collective contribution received was remitted to the assessee
society, generally on the first of every month, while the loans were given to
the employees on a fixed day of the month (around 15^th of the month)
and not every day, and during the intervening period, the idle money collected
by the assessee was deposited with the State Bank of India for the purpose of
earning interest; as and when the amount was required, the deposits with the
State Bank of India are liquidated and utilised for the purposes of the
assessee.

In the above stated facts, it was pleaded that the deposit of
amount with State Bank of India was during the course of business and was part
of the activities of the assessee society and could not be seen in isolation.
It was submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Totgars
Co-operative Sales Society Limited (supra) would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case, inasmuch as to apply the said decision, the
necessary facts had to be on record, and that there was no strait-jacket
formula that the above decision would be applicable. Reliance was placed upon
the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit
Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO, 55 taxmann.com 447, wherein the court had held
that the word “attributable to” was certainly wider in import than
the expression “derived from” and whenever the legislature used the
expression ‘attributable ‘ they intended to gather receipts from sources other
than the actual conduct of business. Reliance was also placed upon the decision
of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative
Society Ltd. vs. ITO, 377 ITR 464 wherein the above view has been
reiterated. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Patna High Court
in the case of Bihar State Housing Co operative Federation Ltd. vs. CIT, 315
ITR 286 wherein the court was dealing with the question as to whether on
the facts and in the circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was correct in
holding that the sum of Rs.15,98,590/- received by way of interest on bank
deposit was not ancillary and incidental to carrying on the business of
providing credit facilities to its members and as such, exempt u/s.
80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the above
decisions would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as the
factual background in which the said decisions were rendered were similar to
the present case.

It was contended that insofar as the interest earned from
deposits was concerned, section 80P(2)(a)(i) did not make any difference nor
was it possible to read any limitation having regard to the language of the
said provision and every income “attributable to any one or more of such
activities” should be deducted from the gross total income. It was
highlighted that one had to bear in mind the object with which the provision
was introduced, viz. to encourage and promote growth of co-operative sector in
the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the
Government. Reference was made to bye-law 7 of the Bye-laws of the appellant
society to point out that the interest income was a part of the corpus of the
society, and when the corpus was invested, the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. (supra) would not be
applicable. It was submitted that the interest income was incidental to the
main activity of the appellant of providing credit facility and that in the
above decision of the Supreme Court, the word ‘incidental’ had not come up for
consideration. In conclusion, it was submitted that the appeals deserved to be
allowed by answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue.

Opposing the appeals, it was contended by the Revenue that it
was only the interest received from members towards credit facilities extended
to them that would fall within the ambit of the expression profits and gains of
business attributable to the activities of the appellant; interest from bank on
surplus did not have any direct or proximate connection with the activities of
the society , and hence, it would not be entitled to the benefit of section
80P(2) of the Act in respect of such income.

It was submitted that in case of a credit co-operative
society, it was the income derived from such activity that was exempt.
Adverting to the facts of the present case, it was submitted that the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. (supra)
was squarely applicable. It was submitted that section 80P of the Act was based
upon the concept of mutuality, and accordingly exempted any income derived by
the society from its members. As the interest earned from the funds deposited
with the banks lacked the degree of proximity between the appellant and its
members, it could not be categorised as an activity in the pursuit of its
objectives, so as to fall within the ambit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

Reference was made to the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), to
point out the nature of the dispute involved in that case. It was submitted
that, in that case, the court was concerned with two activities of the assessee
society: (i) to provide credit facility to its members, and (ii) to market the
agricultural produce of its members. It was submitted that the findings
recorded by the Supreme Court were also in connection with the two activities
and, therefore, to say that the Supreme Court was only concerned with the
surplus of marketing produce was not correct. It was submitted that the
observation regarding the judgment being confined to the facts of that case was
because the assessee was not in the banking business, and all the earlier
decisions in this regard were relating to banking business. It was submitted
that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur
Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra) was based upon an
incorrect reading of the above decision of the Supreme Court.

The Gujarat High Court, on hearing the parties to the appeal,
noted that the short question that arose for consideration in these appeals was
as to whether the appellant was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)
of the Act in respect of the interest earned on the deposits placed with the
State Bank of India. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy in issue,
it extensively referred to the records of the case and appreciated the
contesting views of the parties before the lower authorities. The court also
examined the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars
Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), and supplied emphasis where
felt necessary.

Expressing its opinion, the court stated that in case of a
society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, income from
investments made in banks did not fall in any of the categories mentioned u/s.
80P(2)(a) of the Act; in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society
(supra), the court was dealing with two kinds of activities: interest
income earned from the amount retained from the amount payable to the members
from whom produce was bought and which was invested in short-term
deposits/securities, and the interest derived from the surplus funds that the
assessee therein invested in short-term deposits with the Government
securities. The Gujarat High Court opined that the above decision was not
restricted only to the investments made out of the retained amount which was
payable to its members, but was also in respect of funds not immediately
required for business purposes. For the above reasons, the Gujarat High Court
did not agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur
Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra) to the effect
that the decision of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society
(supra) was restricted to the sale consideration received from marketing
agricultural produce of its members, which was retained in many cases and
invested in short term deposit/security, and that the said decision was
confined to the facts of the said case and did not lay down any law.

Relying on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Totgars
Co-operative Sale Society (supra), the Gujarat High court held that
in case of a society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members,
income from investments made in banks did not fall within any of the categories
mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. In the end, the court did not find
any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference, and
accordingly held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 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 u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Observations

An assessee, a co-operative society engaged in providing
credit facilities to its members, is entitled to deduction for the whole of the
amount of profits and gains of business attributable to such activity. As per
section 80P(2), in the case of a co-operative society engaged in carrying on
the business of providing credit facilities to its members, what is deductible
is the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any
one or more such activities.

A co-operative society which is carrying on the business of
providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains from
business by providing such facilities to its members. The interest income so
earned from members, if not immediately required to be lent to the members,
cannot be kept idle. On deposit of such income in a bank so as to earn
interest, such interest income enhances the capital available for the credit to
its members, besides reducing the cost of interest to members. Such interest so
received from bank has the business nexus, in as much as the source thereof is
the business income, and should be treated as attributable to the profits or
gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only, more
so where such deposit with the bank is for short period and further so where
the bye-laws or the enactment require the society to employ funds. The income
so derived is the profits or gains of business that is attributable to the
activity of carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its
members by a co-operative society and should be eligible for being deducted
from the gross total income u/s. 80P of the Act.

Money is stock-in-trade or circulating capital for a credit
society and its normal business is to deal in money and credit. It cannot be
said that the business of such a society consists only in receiving
contribution from its members. Depositing money with banks or such other societies,
as are mentioned in the objects, in a manner that it may be readily available
to meet the demand of its members, if and when it arises, is a legitimate mode
of carrying on of its business.

The interest received by a credit society on bank deposits,
in any case, is ancillary and incidental to carrying on the business of
providing credit facilities to its members, and as such, is deductible under
the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The nature of credit
business, conducted out of the funds of the employees, clearly creates a
situation where surplus funds are available, which are deposited in a bank,
interest is earned thereon. The placement of such funds, being incidental and
ancillary to carrying on business of providing credit facilities to its
members, and  by reason of section
80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the same should be eligible for deduction. 

The business of a credit society essentially consists of
dealing with money and credit. Members put their money in the society at a
small rate of interest. In order to meet their demands, as and when they arise,
the society has always to keep sufficient cash or easily realisable securities.
That is a normal step in the carrying on of the business; in other words, that
is an act done in what is truly the carrying on or carrying out of a business.

It is a normal mode of carrying on credit business to invest
moneys in a manner that they are readily available and that is just as much a
part of the mode of conducting a business as receiving contributions or lending
moneys; that is how the circulating capital is employed and that is the normal
course of business of a credit society. The moneys laid out in the form of
deposits with the bank would not cease to be a part of the circulating capital
of the credit society nor would the deposits cease to form part of its
business. The returns flowing from the deposits would form part of its profits
from its business. In a commercial sense, the managers of the society owe it to
the society to make investments which earn them interest, instead of letting
moneys lie idle. It cannot be said that the funds which were not lent to
borrowers but were laid out in the form of deposits in another bank, to add to
the profit instead of lying idle, necessarily ceased to be a part of the
stock-in-trade of the society, or that the interest arising therefrom did not
form part of its business profits. 

As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Totgars
Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. (supra), the court, in the facts of that
case, had observed that it was dealing with a case where the assessee –
co-operative society, apart from providing credit facilities to the members,
was also in the business of marketing of agricultural produce grown by its
members; the sale consideration received from marketing agricultural produce of
its members was retained in many cases; the said retained amount which was
payable to its members from whom produce was bought, was invested in a
short-term deposit/security; such an amount which was retained by the assessee
– society was a liability and it was shown in the Balance Sheet on the
liability side. In the above facts, the Supreme Court held that therefore, to
that extent, such interest income could not be said to be attributable either
to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or u/s.
80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. In the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court
held that the Assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income u/s. 56
of the Act. The court further made it clear that it was confining the said
judgment to the facts of the said case and, therefore, was not laying down any
law.

The Supreme Court in that Totgars’ case has held that
interest on such investments, could not fall within the meaning of the expression
“profits and gains of business” and that such interest income could
not be said to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely,
carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members or
marketing of agricultural produce of its members. The court held that when the
assessee society provides credit facilities to its members, it earns interest
income and the interest which accrued on funds not immediately required by the
assessee for its business purposes and which had been invested in specified
securities as “investment” were ineligible for deduction u/s.
80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

It is true that the apex court, in the case of Totgars
Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.(supra), dealt with a case where the
assessee – co-operative society was also providing credit facilities to the
members besides marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. On the
available facts, it appears that, in that case, the interest income from bank
was received from the sale consideration received from marketing agricultural
produce of its members, which was retained by the society in many cases before
the same was finally handed over to the members. The said retained amount which
was payable to its members from whom produce was bought, was invested in a
short-term deposit/security. Such an amount which was retained by the assessee
– society was a liability and it was shown in the balance sheet on the
liability side. Relying on such facts found by the Supreme Court, the Karnataka
High Court sought to distinguish the said decision and held that it was not
applicable to the facts of the case before it. Significantly, the Apex court
itself qualified its decision by observing that the decision was confined to
the facts of the said case . In the circumstances, it may be fair to not apply
the ratio of the said decision to the facts of any other case, unless the facts
therein are found to be identical, and are established  to have been considered by the Apex court.

It is most relevant to note that the Apex court in Totgars’
case had no occasion to consider the decisions delivered by the highest
court regularly on the subject, holding that the interest income of a
co-operative bank from its investments with banks or government securities was
eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. We are of the opinion that had they
been brought to the notice of the court, the decision could have been
different. Another factor that requires that the application of the decision of
the court shall be restricted to Totgars’ case only, is that the court, at no
place, was required to consider whether the income in question could be
considered to be attributable to profits and gains of business or not. The
court was rather concerned about whether the income would be treated as
“profits and gains of business” or from other sources. Again, had the court
been persuaded to consider the language of section 80P and the meaning of the
term “attributable”, we are sure the decision could have been different.

It is also true that this culling of the fact by the
Karnataka High court, from the Supreme court’s decision in Totgar’s
case, has been later on found to be not representing the full facts by the
Gujarat high court by examining the order of the high court passed in Totgars’
case. While that may be the case, it is at the same time important to take into
consideration the fact that the Andhra Pradesh High Court, like the Karnataka
High Court, has also held that the interest income is attributable to carrying
on the main business of banking, and therefore it was eligible for deduction
u/s. 80P(1) of the Act. [Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,200
Taxman 220]. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while deciding the issue in
favour of the assessee society, did consider the decision of the Apex court in
Totgars’ case. In the circumstances, it may be that the Karnataka High Court
erred in deciding the issue on hand by distinguishing the facts of its case
with that of the facts in Totgar’s case. However the decision could not have
been different once it was appreciated that the income in question was
attributable to the profits and gains of business.

There appears to be merit in the conclusion of the Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, which have based their decisions by following
the ratio of the oft followed decision of the Apex court in Cambay’s case,
dealing with the true meaning of the word ‘attributable’ used in chapter VI-A.
The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word
‘attributable’ in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.
CIT 113 ITR 84 as under:

‘As regards the aspect
emerging from the expression “attributable to” occurring in the
phrase “profits and gains attributable to the business of the specified
industry (here generation and distribution of electricity) on which the learned
Solicitor-General relied, it will be pertinent to observe that the legislature,
has deliberately used the expression “attributable to” and not the
expression “derived from”. It cannot be disputed that the expression
“attributable to” is certainly wider in import than the expression
“derived from”. Had the expression “derived from” been
used, it could have with some force been contended that a balancing charge
arising from the sale of old machinery and buildings cannot be regarded as
profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and
distribution of electricity. In this connection, it may be pointed out that
whenever the legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner
suggested by the learned Solicitor-General, it has used the expression
”derived from”, as, for instance, in section-80J. In our view, since the
expression of wider import, namely, “attributable to”, has been used, the
legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual
conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity.’

The word “attributable to” is certainly wider in
import than the expression “derived from”. Whenever the legislature
wanted to give a restricted meaning, they have used the expression
“derived from”. The expression “attributable to” being of
wider import, the said expression is used by the legislature whenever they
intended to gather receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the
business.

The Apex Court, in various decisions, has consistently held
the view that interest income on investments made by the banks was attributable
to the profits and gains of business and was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of
the Act. [Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank, 252 ITR 194 (SC),
Mehsana District, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., 251 ITR 522 (SC), Nawanshahar
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.289 ITR 6 (SC), Bombay State Co-operative
Bank Ltd. 70 ITR 86 (SC) (para 16), Bangalore Distt. Co-op. Central Bank
Ltd. 233 ITR 282 (SC), Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392
(SC), Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. 255 ITR 423
(SC), Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,349 ITR 689 (SC)].
These decisions are an authority for the proposition that, even though the
investment made does not form part of its main activity, stock in trade or working
capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption u/s.
80P of the Income-tax Act.

The Apex court in Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank
Ltd.’s case (supra), observed as under. “this Court has consistently held
that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business of banking.
The income arising from such investments would, therefore, be attributable to
the business of bank falling under the head “Profits and gains of
business” and thus deductible under section 80-P(2)(a)( i) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961. This has been so held in Bihar State Coop. Bank Ltd. 39
ITR 114 (SC). Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank, 259 ITR 144 and Ramanathapuram
Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd.255 ITR 423(SC).The principle in these cases
would also cover a situation where a cooperative bank carrying on the business
of banking is statutorily required to place a part of its funds in approved
securities.”

Attention is also invited to clause (b) of sub-section 2 of
section 80P, which clause while providing for deduction for certain primary
societies provides for a deduction in respect of “the whole of the amount of
profits and gains of such business” as against “the whole of the amount of
profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such
activities” covered by clause (a) of sub-section 2 of section 80P. A
bare reading of the contrasting provisions clearly shows that scope of clause
(a) is wider than clause (b), plainly on account of the insertion of the terms
‘attributable and activities’. These terms cannot be treated as redundant and
should be given the appropriate meaning.