The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the Tribunal’s order. The Revenue argues that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the decision, ignoring binding Karnataka High Court decisions in two Totagars Cooperative Sale Society cases. One held that cooperative banks qualify as cooperative societies u/s. 80P (2)(d), while the other denied deduction when the interest income wasn’t from business operations.

The Revenue claims this constitutes an apparent mistake warranting recall of the order. However, the assessee opposes the application, arguing that similar relief was granted in earlier years and upheld consistently by the Tribunal and other High Courts. The assessee further contends that the Revenue’s request amounts to a review, not a rectification, which is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, citing the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v Reliance Telecom Ltd( 2022] 284 Taxman 517 /  440 ITR 1 (SC

Tribunal held that the predecessor’s decision aligns with consistent judicial views, including those of the Mumbai Tribunal, which conclude that for deduction u/s. 80P (2)(d), co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies. This position has been upheld by various coordinate benches and higher judicial forums. The Revenue seeks to recall the order u/s. 254(2), however, such a recall falls outside the limited scope of S. 254(2), as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. Accordingly, the appeal was rightly decided in favour of the assessee, and the application for recall is without merit. (Arising out of ITA No. 981/Mum/2023 dt . 14-06 -2023 ,  MA No. 63/ MUM/2024  dt. 20 -6 -2025)