Tribunal held that the narration in loan extracts and audit reports by itself might not be conclusive to prove whether a loan was an agricultural loan or a non-agricultural loan. The gold loans might or might not be disbursed for the purpose of agricultural purposes. Necessarily, the Assessing Officer had to examine the details of each loan disbursement and determine the purpose for which the loans were disbursed, i. e., whether it was for agricultural purpose or non-agricultural purpose. In this case, such a detailed examination had not been conducted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall list out the instances where loans had been disbursed for non-agricultural purposes and accordingly conclude whether the assessee’s activities were not in compliance with the activities of a primary agricultural credit society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before denying the deduction under section 80P(2) . Matter remanded. (AY.2017-18)